P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

124
P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO("AT-.S, INC. COSTA RICA. SOCIAL EQUITY AND CRISIS Internationai Scictice and Technology Instikite. Inc. -

Transcript of P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

Page 1: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

P FA F7 ALLEN ASSO(AT-S INC

COSTA RICA SOCIAL EQUITY AND CRISIS

Internationai Scictice and Technology Instikite Inc -

COSTA JrICA SOCIAL EQUITY AND CRISIS

PREPARED FOR

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LACDP

(CONTRACT No LAC-0000-C-00-7050-00)

PREPARED BY

ALAIN THERY ISTI ERNESTO KRITZ CONSULTANT AFA

ELIANE KARP CONSULTANT AFA MAURICIO PEREA AFA

PREPARED BY

ANITA F ALLEN ASSOCIATES INC AflD

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

June 1988

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 BACKGROUND 2

2 POPULATION 5

21-22 POPULATION GROWTH 23 STRUCTURE OF FERTILITY RATE 24 MORTALITY 25 IMMIGRATION 26 AGE STRUCTURE

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME 7

31-33 MACROECONOMIC TRENDS 34-35 WAGE TRENDS IN THE 1970s 36-37 STRUCTURE OF WAGES 38-39 EARLY MACROECONOMIC RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS 310-314 IMPACT ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT 315-319 DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACT OF THE CRISIS 320 RECOVERY 321-323 LEGACY OF THE CRISIS ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT

4 EMPLOYMENT 15

4 1-42 GROWTH OF THE LABOR FORCE 43-44 CAUSES 45-47 UNEMPLOYMENT AND OB CREATION 48 PATTERNS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 49-414 AGRICULTURAL LABOR SURPLUS AND INFORMAL SECTOR 414-419 LABOR MARKET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CRISIS 420-421 IMPACT ON INCOME

5 SOCIAL WELFARE 21

51-56 GENERAL TRFtDs 57-511 FOOD PROGRAMS 512-520 NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN 521-523 FOOD CONSUMPTION 524-527 HEALTH PROGRAMS 528-531 HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN

532-537 INFANT MORTALITY 538-539 BASIC SERVICES 540-542 EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND IMPACT 543-546 BASIC EDUCATION 547 HIGHER EDUCATION 548-551 LIMITS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

6 CONCLUSIONS 34

ANNEX A MACROECONOMIC DATA 36

ANNEX B POPULATION 46

ANNEx C EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME 55

ANNEX D SOCIAL PROGRAMS 68

ANNEX E NUTRITION 75

ANNEX F HEALTH 86

ANNEX G EDUCATION 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 112

LIST OF TABLES

SUBJECT TABLE

GDP AND VALUE ADDED BY SECTORS 1970-1987 (CURRENT COLONES) A-I

CONSTANT COLONES A-2

SECTORAL DEFLATORS 1970-1987 A-3

STRUCTURE OF GDP 1970-1987 A-4

GDP BY EXPENDITURES A-5

NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME 1970-1987 A-6

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND EXCHANGE RATE 1970-1987 A-7

TERMS OF TRADE 1970-19855 A-8

LAND DISTRIBUTION 1973 1984 A-9

LAND DISTRIBUTION REGIONBY A-10

POPULATION BY GROWTH RATE AND GENDER 1970-1987 B-I

POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970-1985 B-2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND GENDER 1970-1985 B-3 A B C

ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970-1985 B-4

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950-1985 B-5

ABSOLUTE POPULATION GROWTH 1970-1985 B-6

LABOR FORCE 1976-1986 C-i

EMPLOYMENT RATES 1976-1986 C-2

SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS JULYNOVEMBER C-3

SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS 1976-1986 C-4

EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIONIAL SECTORS 1976-1986 C-5

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER ECONOMIC SECTOR 1976-1986 C-6

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 176-1986 C-7

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 C-8

1987

SALARIED POPULATION BY GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 1987 C-9

MONTHLY WAGE ESTIMATES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS AND NATIONAL C-10 ACCOUNTS 1976-1986

OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE BY GENDER 1987 C-l

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1971-1985 C-12

SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME 1983 C-13

CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR DISTRICTS C-14

PER CAPITA SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1930-1983 D-1

PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECTOR 1975-1985 D-2 ABC

RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS COVERAGE 1973-1985 D-3

BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM D-4

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION D-5

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979-1985 E-1

GOMEZ WA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-2 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA WH UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-3 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA HA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-4 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

NATIONAL STATUS OF PhESCHOOLERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPLEMENTARY E-5 FOOD PROGRAMS 1976 1980

CALORIC CONSUMPTION PER BENEFICIARY MONTH IN SCHOOL E-6 SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION PER PERSONDAY E-7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CALORIES PROTEINS AND NUTRIENTS OF DIET E-8 IN RELATION TO MDR

COST OF MINIMUM FOOD BASKET AND MINIMUM WAGE E-9

AVERAGE CALORIC CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL OF PER CAPITA INCOME 1982 E-11

AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CALORIC AND PROTEIN INTAKE E-12 URBANRURAL 1982

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 2: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

COSTA JrICA SOCIAL EQUITY AND CRISIS

PREPARED FOR

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LACDP

(CONTRACT No LAC-0000-C-00-7050-00)

PREPARED BY

ALAIN THERY ISTI ERNESTO KRITZ CONSULTANT AFA

ELIANE KARP CONSULTANT AFA MAURICIO PEREA AFA

PREPARED BY

ANITA F ALLEN ASSOCIATES INC AflD

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

June 1988

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 BACKGROUND 2

2 POPULATION 5

21-22 POPULATION GROWTH 23 STRUCTURE OF FERTILITY RATE 24 MORTALITY 25 IMMIGRATION 26 AGE STRUCTURE

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME 7

31-33 MACROECONOMIC TRENDS 34-35 WAGE TRENDS IN THE 1970s 36-37 STRUCTURE OF WAGES 38-39 EARLY MACROECONOMIC RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS 310-314 IMPACT ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT 315-319 DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACT OF THE CRISIS 320 RECOVERY 321-323 LEGACY OF THE CRISIS ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT

4 EMPLOYMENT 15

4 1-42 GROWTH OF THE LABOR FORCE 43-44 CAUSES 45-47 UNEMPLOYMENT AND OB CREATION 48 PATTERNS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 49-414 AGRICULTURAL LABOR SURPLUS AND INFORMAL SECTOR 414-419 LABOR MARKET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CRISIS 420-421 IMPACT ON INCOME

5 SOCIAL WELFARE 21

51-56 GENERAL TRFtDs 57-511 FOOD PROGRAMS 512-520 NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN 521-523 FOOD CONSUMPTION 524-527 HEALTH PROGRAMS 528-531 HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN

532-537 INFANT MORTALITY 538-539 BASIC SERVICES 540-542 EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND IMPACT 543-546 BASIC EDUCATION 547 HIGHER EDUCATION 548-551 LIMITS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

6 CONCLUSIONS 34

ANNEX A MACROECONOMIC DATA 36

ANNEX B POPULATION 46

ANNEx C EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME 55

ANNEX D SOCIAL PROGRAMS 68

ANNEX E NUTRITION 75

ANNEX F HEALTH 86

ANNEX G EDUCATION 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 112

LIST OF TABLES

SUBJECT TABLE

GDP AND VALUE ADDED BY SECTORS 1970-1987 (CURRENT COLONES) A-I

CONSTANT COLONES A-2

SECTORAL DEFLATORS 1970-1987 A-3

STRUCTURE OF GDP 1970-1987 A-4

GDP BY EXPENDITURES A-5

NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME 1970-1987 A-6

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND EXCHANGE RATE 1970-1987 A-7

TERMS OF TRADE 1970-19855 A-8

LAND DISTRIBUTION 1973 1984 A-9

LAND DISTRIBUTION REGIONBY A-10

POPULATION BY GROWTH RATE AND GENDER 1970-1987 B-I

POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970-1985 B-2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND GENDER 1970-1985 B-3 A B C

ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970-1985 B-4

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950-1985 B-5

ABSOLUTE POPULATION GROWTH 1970-1985 B-6

LABOR FORCE 1976-1986 C-i

EMPLOYMENT RATES 1976-1986 C-2

SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS JULYNOVEMBER C-3

SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS 1976-1986 C-4

EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIONIAL SECTORS 1976-1986 C-5

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER ECONOMIC SECTOR 1976-1986 C-6

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 176-1986 C-7

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 C-8

1987

SALARIED POPULATION BY GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 1987 C-9

MONTHLY WAGE ESTIMATES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS AND NATIONAL C-10 ACCOUNTS 1976-1986

OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE BY GENDER 1987 C-l

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1971-1985 C-12

SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME 1983 C-13

CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR DISTRICTS C-14

PER CAPITA SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1930-1983 D-1

PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECTOR 1975-1985 D-2 ABC

RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS COVERAGE 1973-1985 D-3

BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM D-4

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION D-5

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979-1985 E-1

GOMEZ WA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-2 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA WH UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-3 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA HA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-4 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

NATIONAL STATUS OF PhESCHOOLERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPLEMENTARY E-5 FOOD PROGRAMS 1976 1980

CALORIC CONSUMPTION PER BENEFICIARY MONTH IN SCHOOL E-6 SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION PER PERSONDAY E-7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CALORIES PROTEINS AND NUTRIENTS OF DIET E-8 IN RELATION TO MDR

COST OF MINIMUM FOOD BASKET AND MINIMUM WAGE E-9

AVERAGE CALORIC CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL OF PER CAPITA INCOME 1982 E-11

AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CALORIC AND PROTEIN INTAKE E-12 URBANRURAL 1982

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 3: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1 BACKGROUND 2

2 POPULATION 5

21-22 POPULATION GROWTH 23 STRUCTURE OF FERTILITY RATE 24 MORTALITY 25 IMMIGRATION 26 AGE STRUCTURE

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME 7

31-33 MACROECONOMIC TRENDS 34-35 WAGE TRENDS IN THE 1970s 36-37 STRUCTURE OF WAGES 38-39 EARLY MACROECONOMIC RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS 310-314 IMPACT ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT 315-319 DISTRIBUTIONAL IMPACT OF THE CRISIS 320 RECOVERY 321-323 LEGACY OF THE CRISIS ON WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT

4 EMPLOYMENT 15

4 1-42 GROWTH OF THE LABOR FORCE 43-44 CAUSES 45-47 UNEMPLOYMENT AND OB CREATION 48 PATTERNS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 49-414 AGRICULTURAL LABOR SURPLUS AND INFORMAL SECTOR 414-419 LABOR MARKET ADJUSTMENT TO THE CRISIS 420-421 IMPACT ON INCOME

5 SOCIAL WELFARE 21

51-56 GENERAL TRFtDs 57-511 FOOD PROGRAMS 512-520 NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF CHILDREN 521-523 FOOD CONSUMPTION 524-527 HEALTH PROGRAMS 528-531 HEALTH STATUS OF CHILDREN

532-537 INFANT MORTALITY 538-539 BASIC SERVICES 540-542 EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND IMPACT 543-546 BASIC EDUCATION 547 HIGHER EDUCATION 548-551 LIMITS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

6 CONCLUSIONS 34

ANNEX A MACROECONOMIC DATA 36

ANNEX B POPULATION 46

ANNEx C EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME 55

ANNEX D SOCIAL PROGRAMS 68

ANNEX E NUTRITION 75

ANNEX F HEALTH 86

ANNEX G EDUCATION 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 112

LIST OF TABLES

SUBJECT TABLE

GDP AND VALUE ADDED BY SECTORS 1970-1987 (CURRENT COLONES) A-I

CONSTANT COLONES A-2

SECTORAL DEFLATORS 1970-1987 A-3

STRUCTURE OF GDP 1970-1987 A-4

GDP BY EXPENDITURES A-5

NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME 1970-1987 A-6

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND EXCHANGE RATE 1970-1987 A-7

TERMS OF TRADE 1970-19855 A-8

LAND DISTRIBUTION 1973 1984 A-9

LAND DISTRIBUTION REGIONBY A-10

POPULATION BY GROWTH RATE AND GENDER 1970-1987 B-I

POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970-1985 B-2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND GENDER 1970-1985 B-3 A B C

ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970-1985 B-4

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950-1985 B-5

ABSOLUTE POPULATION GROWTH 1970-1985 B-6

LABOR FORCE 1976-1986 C-i

EMPLOYMENT RATES 1976-1986 C-2

SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS JULYNOVEMBER C-3

SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS 1976-1986 C-4

EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIONIAL SECTORS 1976-1986 C-5

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER ECONOMIC SECTOR 1976-1986 C-6

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 176-1986 C-7

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 C-8

1987

SALARIED POPULATION BY GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 1987 C-9

MONTHLY WAGE ESTIMATES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS AND NATIONAL C-10 ACCOUNTS 1976-1986

OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE BY GENDER 1987 C-l

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1971-1985 C-12

SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME 1983 C-13

CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR DISTRICTS C-14

PER CAPITA SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1930-1983 D-1

PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECTOR 1975-1985 D-2 ABC

RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS COVERAGE 1973-1985 D-3

BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM D-4

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION D-5

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979-1985 E-1

GOMEZ WA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-2 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA WH UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-3 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA HA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-4 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

NATIONAL STATUS OF PhESCHOOLERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPLEMENTARY E-5 FOOD PROGRAMS 1976 1980

CALORIC CONSUMPTION PER BENEFICIARY MONTH IN SCHOOL E-6 SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION PER PERSONDAY E-7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CALORIES PROTEINS AND NUTRIENTS OF DIET E-8 IN RELATION TO MDR

COST OF MINIMUM FOOD BASKET AND MINIMUM WAGE E-9

AVERAGE CALORIC CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL OF PER CAPITA INCOME 1982 E-11

AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CALORIC AND PROTEIN INTAKE E-12 URBANRURAL 1982

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 4: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

532-537 INFANT MORTALITY 538-539 BASIC SERVICES 540-542 EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND IMPACT 543-546 BASIC EDUCATION 547 HIGHER EDUCATION 548-551 LIMITS OF EDUCATIONAL POLICY

6 CONCLUSIONS 34

ANNEX A MACROECONOMIC DATA 36

ANNEX B POPULATION 46

ANNEx C EMPLOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME 55

ANNEX D SOCIAL PROGRAMS 68

ANNEX E NUTRITION 75

ANNEX F HEALTH 86

ANNEX G EDUCATION 101

BIBLIOGRAPHY 112

LIST OF TABLES

SUBJECT TABLE

GDP AND VALUE ADDED BY SECTORS 1970-1987 (CURRENT COLONES) A-I

CONSTANT COLONES A-2

SECTORAL DEFLATORS 1970-1987 A-3

STRUCTURE OF GDP 1970-1987 A-4

GDP BY EXPENDITURES A-5

NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME 1970-1987 A-6

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND EXCHANGE RATE 1970-1987 A-7

TERMS OF TRADE 1970-19855 A-8

LAND DISTRIBUTION 1973 1984 A-9

LAND DISTRIBUTION REGIONBY A-10

POPULATION BY GROWTH RATE AND GENDER 1970-1987 B-I

POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970-1985 B-2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND GENDER 1970-1985 B-3 A B C

ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970-1985 B-4

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950-1985 B-5

ABSOLUTE POPULATION GROWTH 1970-1985 B-6

LABOR FORCE 1976-1986 C-i

EMPLOYMENT RATES 1976-1986 C-2

SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS JULYNOVEMBER C-3

SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS 1976-1986 C-4

EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIONIAL SECTORS 1976-1986 C-5

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER ECONOMIC SECTOR 1976-1986 C-6

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 176-1986 C-7

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 C-8

1987

SALARIED POPULATION BY GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 1987 C-9

MONTHLY WAGE ESTIMATES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS AND NATIONAL C-10 ACCOUNTS 1976-1986

OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE BY GENDER 1987 C-l

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1971-1985 C-12

SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME 1983 C-13

CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR DISTRICTS C-14

PER CAPITA SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1930-1983 D-1

PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECTOR 1975-1985 D-2 ABC

RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS COVERAGE 1973-1985 D-3

BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM D-4

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION D-5

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979-1985 E-1

GOMEZ WA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-2 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA WH UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-3 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA HA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-4 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

NATIONAL STATUS OF PhESCHOOLERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPLEMENTARY E-5 FOOD PROGRAMS 1976 1980

CALORIC CONSUMPTION PER BENEFICIARY MONTH IN SCHOOL E-6 SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION PER PERSONDAY E-7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CALORIES PROTEINS AND NUTRIENTS OF DIET E-8 IN RELATION TO MDR

COST OF MINIMUM FOOD BASKET AND MINIMUM WAGE E-9

AVERAGE CALORIC CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL OF PER CAPITA INCOME 1982 E-11

AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CALORIC AND PROTEIN INTAKE E-12 URBANRURAL 1982

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 5: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

LIST OF TABLES

SUBJECT TABLE

GDP AND VALUE ADDED BY SECTORS 1970-1987 (CURRENT COLONES) A-I

CONSTANT COLONES A-2

SECTORAL DEFLATORS 1970-1987 A-3

STRUCTURE OF GDP 1970-1987 A-4

GDP BY EXPENDITURES A-5

NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME 1970-1987 A-6

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND EXCHANGE RATE 1970-1987 A-7

TERMS OF TRADE 1970-19855 A-8

LAND DISTRIBUTION 1973 1984 A-9

LAND DISTRIBUTION REGIONBY A-10

POPULATION BY GROWTH RATE AND GENDER 1970-1987 B-I

POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970-1985 B-2

DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY AGE AND GENDER 1970-1985 B-3 A B C

ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970-1985 B-4

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950-1985 B-5

ABSOLUTE POPULATION GROWTH 1970-1985 B-6

LABOR FORCE 1976-1986 C-i

EMPLOYMENT RATES 1976-1986 C-2

SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS JULYNOVEMBER C-3

SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS 1976-1986 C-4

EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIONIAL SECTORS 1976-1986 C-5

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER ECONOMIC SECTOR 1976-1986 C-6

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 176-1986 C-7

AVERAGE MONTHLY WAGE PER GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 C-8

1987

SALARIED POPULATION BY GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 1987 C-9

MONTHLY WAGE ESTIMATES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS AND NATIONAL C-10 ACCOUNTS 1976-1986

OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE BY GENDER 1987 C-l

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1971-1985 C-12

SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME 1983 C-13

CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR DISTRICTS C-14

PER CAPITA SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1930-1983 D-1

PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECTOR 1975-1985 D-2 ABC

RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS COVERAGE 1973-1985 D-3

BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM D-4

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION D-5

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979-1985 E-1

GOMEZ WA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-2 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA WH UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-3 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA HA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-4 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

NATIONAL STATUS OF PhESCHOOLERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPLEMENTARY E-5 FOOD PROGRAMS 1976 1980

CALORIC CONSUMPTION PER BENEFICIARY MONTH IN SCHOOL E-6 SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION PER PERSONDAY E-7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CALORIES PROTEINS AND NUTRIENTS OF DIET E-8 IN RELATION TO MDR

COST OF MINIMUM FOOD BASKET AND MINIMUM WAGE E-9

AVERAGE CALORIC CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL OF PER CAPITA INCOME 1982 E-11

AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CALORIC AND PROTEIN INTAKE E-12 URBANRURAL 1982

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 6: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

1987

SALARIED POPULATION BY GENDER AND INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR 1980 1987 C-9

MONTHLY WAGE ESTIMATES FROM HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS AND NATIONAL C-10 ACCOUNTS 1976-1986

OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE BY GENDER 1987 C-l

HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1971-1985 C-12

SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME 1983 C-13

CHARACTERISTICS OF POOR DISTRICTS C-14

PER CAPITA SOCIAL EXPENDITURES 1930-1983 D-1

PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECTOR 1975-1985 D-2 ABC

RURAL AND COMMUNITY HEALTH PROGRAMS COVERAGE 1973-1985 D-3

BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAM D-4

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES IN HEALTH AND EDUCATION D-5

NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979-1985 E-1

GOMEZ WA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-2 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA WH UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-3 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

IOWA HA UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDREN E-4 AGED 0-72 MONTHS 1978 1982

NATIONAL STATUS OF PhESCHOOLERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPLEMENTARY E-5 FOOD PROGRAMS 1976 1980

CALORIC CONSUMPTION PER BENEFICIARY MONTH IN SCHOOL E-6 SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

AVERAGE FOOD CONSUMPTION PER PERSONDAY E-7

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF CALORIES PROTEINS AND NUTRIENTS OF DIET E-8 IN RELATION TO MDR

COST OF MINIMUM FOOD BASKET AND MINIMUM WAGE E-9

AVERAGE CALORIC CONSUMPTION BY LEVEL OF PER CAPITA INCOME 1982 E-11

AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CALORIC AND PROTEIN INTAKE E-12 URBANRURAL 1982

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 7: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

RATE OF DISEASES PREVENTABLE BY VACCINES 1970-1985 F-I

IMMUNIZATION COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN 0-5 YRS 1986 F-2 O FOR CHILDREN 0-1 YR 1980-1986 F-3 o PER AREA OF RESIDENCE MOTHERS EDUCATION AND F-4

INCOME LEVEL

TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE URBANRURAL F-5

MORTALITY RATES HY AGE GROUPS 1900-1980 F-6

TRENDS IN MORTALITY RATES O BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS 1962-1981 F-7 o BY AREAS OF RESIDENCE AND MOTHERS EDUCATION F-8

1965-69 1981-84

INFANT MORTALITY RATE BY AREA OF R2SIDENCE MATERNAL EDUCATION F-9 AND BREAST FEEDING

LEVELS OF PRENATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGE AREA OF RESIDENCE F-10 EDUCATION AND INCOME 1986

INFANT MORTALITY BY GROUP OF CAUSES 1970-1984 F-Il

GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PU SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATH 1916-78 F-12

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT VARIAB7Eg ON INFANT MORTALITY F-13 RATE TRENDS 1968-198G

CRUDE DIARRHEAL DISEASE DEATH _oAIE AND INFANT F-14 MORTALITY RATE 1926-1982

WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 1980-1986 F-15 A B

EDUCATION BUDGET AS SHARE OF UNTRAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET G-1

TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT BY CYCLqND GRADE 1980-1986 G-2

ENROLLMENT RATES BY PROVINCES 1982-1986 G-3

SCHOOL BY LEVELS AND URBANRURAL BREAKDOWN 1970-1984 G-4

REPETITION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-5

FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986 G-6

DROP-OUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE G-7

ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE DROP-OUT RATES CYCLE III 1982-1986 G-8

EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984 G-9

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 8: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Mr Robert Adler USAIDEconomics

Sra Maria Baez Direccion General de Estadisticas y Censos

Sra Nora Bermudez MIDEPLAN

Sra Aydee Brenez Ministerio de Salud

Sra Carmen Camacho MIDEPLAN

Sr Jorge Canales CELADE

Sr Jose Carbajal Asociacion Demografica Costarricense

Dr Carlos Cedeno Ministerio de SaludImmunizaciones

Dr Victor Hugo Cespedes IICE Universidad de Costa Rica

Sr Edgar Estrada Ministerio de Trabayo y Seguridad Social

Dr Lorenzo Guadamuz Ministerio de Educacion

Dra Paulina Herrera Vargas Banco Central de Costa Rica Depto de Estadisticas

Dr Juan Lugari Ministerio de Salud Diretion de Saneamiento

Dr Leonardo Mata INISA (Institute for Research in Health)

Sra Athenia Montegro UNICEF

Dr Jorge Mernies Asignacione8 Familiares

Sr Victor MorganAsociacion Demografica Costarricense

Ms Betsy Murray AIDHR

Dr Carlos Rabee INCIENSA (Institute for Research in Nutrition)

Sr Manuel Rincon

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 9: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

CELADE

Sra Flora Ruiz AIDEducation

Sra Susanna Schmidt MIDEPLAN

Sra Ania Silevsky MIDEPLAN

Dr Luis Tacsan Ministerio de SaludCEN-CINAI

Dr Van Diego Trejos IICE (Universidad de Costa Rica

Dr Hugo Villegas PAHO Representative

Sr Guillerino Wilches MIDEPLAN

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 10: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.

Executive Summrnary

Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations From the 1940s to the end of the 1970s it succeeded in combining steady economic growth and socialequity objectives through a mix of redistributive policies and social programs

During the 1970s economic growth was translated into substantial wageincreases In particular the added revenues resulting from the high price ofcoffee in 1976-1978 led to improvements in real wages well over 15 per yearduring the period levels not warranted by real economic growth

The reversal of the terms of trade in 1979 had a major impact on the economic performance due to the high degree of openness of the economy It also exacerbated structural problems inherent in the import-substitutionindustrialization strategy adopted in the early 1960s After the distributive excesses of the previous three years public policy aimed at avoiding an economicrecession through the expansion of internal dewand primarily by increased publicsector expenditures

In the period between 1980 and 1982 output fell close to 9 Unemployment rose to a historical high of 96 although the employed labor force kept growingthe surge in employment was the result of an increase in the labor force to compensate for falling real income and increased lags between jcpop4-tn

Inflation increased sharply reaching 90 in 1982 and real wages were seriouslyaffected According to national accounts data average real wages fell 345 between 1980 and 1982 However this estimate based on a survey of employersreporting to the Social Security Institute may have overestimated the fall inreal wages by not taking into account a shift in employment structure toward small firms during the period of crisis It is likely that the actual loss in real wages was much less than reported

The recessionary pericd also affected the structure of wages by economic sectors Agricultural wages were less affected than wages in other sectors the resultof this sectors solid performance during the period and the lesser volatilityof rural wages compared to urban wages The disparity between public and privatewages was substantially riduced an indication of an adjustment by the publicsector to the new economic conditions

Although this trend of public wages started in 1981 it has continued during the period of recovery beginning in 1983 The impact of the crisis on the welfareof the population was dampened by the high level of income in kind in total household income particularly for the low income groups Existing public programs and the implementation of an emergency Social Compensation Programprovided an additional social safety net that benefitted mostly the poorestincome classes

As a resilt social welfare indicators point to only a minor deterioration of the situation It is probably one of the raost significant characteristics of Costa Rican public policy that it has succeeded in cushioning the impact of economic downturns on the general welfare of the population

In summary it may be said that the crisis had a greater impact because it cameafter a period of rapidly increasing real incomes Its magnitude however wasreduced especially in comparison with other countries of the region and was of short duration The recovery since 1983 has allowed for annual gains in real wages although average real wages still are short of reaching the level of 1979

1 BACKGROUND

11 Costa Rica is an exception among Central American nations It has achieved high economic growth over the 1970s while directly addressing questionsof social equity The social impact of the economic crisis which beganmanifesting itself in the late 1970s and the process of adjustmentfollowed by Costa Rican authorities can only be understood in the context of this particular mix of economic and social policies which have prevailed over most of the last forty years

12 In the late 1940s the crisis affecting the traditional export-ledagriculture (mostly coffee) and easy spending policies for new social programs led to a deteriorating economic situation and political climate The increasingly authoritarian regime of President Calderon in 1948 refused to yield power to President Elect Ulate and a brief but violent civil war erupted The intersiationally mediated end of this period of violence and the provisional government of Jose Figueres signalled a shift of power from the so-called oligarchy (agro-exporters manufacturers importersfinanciers and bankers) to an emerging class of entrepreneurs and small to medium-sized agricultural producers

13 The first policies implemented by the new regime aimed at consolidatingthe gains from the revolution The nationalization of the banking system was designed to further undercut the power of traditional economic groupsand to redirect credit according to developmental criteria stressingagricultural diversification and favoring the new economic elites of agroshyindustrialists and the broad base of snall producers

Another key goal was the depolitization of the state through the introduction of a technical concept in public management and the creation of a technocratic bureaucracy The first step in this direction was included in the Constitution of 1949 which defined a class of autonomous agencies with specific technical functions (water supply electrical distribution agricultural prices stabilization etc) to be run byindividuals with technical expertise Over the last decades this concepthas been extended to the rest of the public sector and by the 1980s the government bureaucracy was characterized by a high average educational level The role of the new bureaucratic elite being constructed was to play a transitive role in the economy in order to enhance the possibilitiesof private accumulation

14 The emerging class of entrepreneurs-politicians in the early 1950s consolidated its power base by incorporating other elite sectors and a large portion of the popular sectors The conduct of economic policybecame the result of interrelations between the different factions of the economic elite and the state economic bureaucracy

By 1958 the modernized version of export-led growth in place since 1949 came under strain due to a fall in coffee prices The immediate reaction of the government wan to implement policies aimed at providing support to traditional agriculture producers But this new crisis as well as the emerging industrialization process in Cgntral America and the first multilateral agreement for what would eventually become the Central American Common Market (ChCM) provided the impetus for a serious reassessment of the development strategy for Costa Rica Under stronglobbying from the Chamber of Industry a pro-industrialization importsubstitution strategy with less emphasis on agricultural linkages was adopted by 1960 A more specific strategy was implemeitted with the

2

establishment of the CACM on the same basis ie without consideration of comparative advantage

15 To promote industrialization a tariff system discriminating againstimports of finished goods was established Imports of raw materials semishyfinished products and capital equipment required by the fledgling industry were employed of duties if originating outside the region

The colon was maintained overvalued during this period to maintain cheapnecessary imports and to pacify manufacturers importers and lobbyists

This set of policies created severe rigidities on the balance of paymentsFaced with the uneasy choice between continued trade imbalances or sectoral stagnation Costa Rican authorities opted for the former during most nf the 60s and 70s and increased the level of protection to extremely highlevels to sustain local industries which lacked comparative advantages

16 By the end of the 1960s the industrial elites were highly dependent on the state for their own private economic well being and were willing to concede an increased role to the state in economic affairs At the same time concerns over the competitiveness of Costa Ric industries emerged

These two elements paved the way for a strengthening of the interventionist role of the state and in 1972 the Costa Rican Development Corporation(CODESA) was legally created In the intervening years to the actual beginning of operations major changes in the role of CODESA were introduced instead of limiting itself to the role of facilitator ofeconcmic development CODESA was to undertake ambitious economic investment programs This shift in the nature of CODESA appears to havebeen pushed by the class of technocrats-bureaucrats who wanted to asserttheir power and play a more active role in the conduct of economic policyThe dissatisfaction with the achievements of the development strategy and the increased reliance of the industrialists on government actions providedthe stepping stone for a more active role of the technocratic bureaucracyAs a result the Costa Rican state stopped being an intermediary and undertook a more interventionist role as an entrepreneur

17 The misgivings private industrialists had toward the changing role of CODESA solidified into outright opposition which led to the replacementof the three private sector representatives on the board by governmentrepresentatives This opposition succeeded in incorporating a large segment of the private sector

The net result was the disintegration of over two decades of linkagesbetween the private industrial sector and public authorities The Costa Rican Governments which succeeded were only able to pursue their moretraditional functions and undertake its new entrepreneurial role at the cost of a rapidly increasing foreign debt

18 After the civil war of 1948 the provisionary government had clearly statedthe need for linkages between economic growth and social equity The roots of this conception of public policy may be found as much in ethical considerations as in political realities It was necessary to rebuild public morale rewrite all segments of society and prevent the spread of communist ideology

Since then numerous pressure groups - - frequently not organized alongclass lines - - have represented products sectors regions or communal interests in political decision making This widespread involvement of social groups has resulted in the institutionalization of compromife and the neutralization of specific interests

3

The activity of these groups has probably contributed substantially to the implementation of the public social philosophy into programs and policiesby the various administrations

19 Distributive policies in Costa Rica were implemented through an extensive minimum wage system which covered a wide range of activities from unqualified labor to professional and technicians This system then evolved into a global income policy which aimed at providing appropriatereturns for various levels of skills and education thus setting incentives for a better qualification of the labor force By the late 1970sindividuals ith higher educational background earned more than the minimum wage for the occupational category

The evolution of real incomes was also controlled through prices The monitoring and control of prices was done at tio levels 1) through the National Production Commission (CNP) which sets up minimum producer pricesfor a range of agricultural products for internal consumption and 2)through the Ministry of Economy and Commerce (MEC) which sets up maximum consumer prices This dual system - - which often leads to conflicts between the MEC and the CNP - shy protects general real incomes particularlyof the classes which spend a high proportion of their income on food and necessities while guaranteeing a vast class of peasants a floor to their income from production

110 The various administrations have also significantly expanded a vast arrayof social programs in health and education and the access of all sectors of the population

In the health sector a double approach has been used to ensure the adequate provision of both preventive and curative care preventive medicine is administered by the Ministry of Health through a network of medical posts social workers school children monitoring programs while curative care is provided by the Social Security Institute (CCSS) through its hospital network Although 60 of the population contributes directly tothe CCSS attention in public hospitals is universal Individuals requiring medical attention are treated without regard to their CCSS status and are assessed a fee related to their ability to pay at a later date

Because it was felt that the system of social assistance did not address all the needs in the second half of the 1970s the Mixed Social Assistance Institute (IMAS) was created to meet the needs of the poorestelements of the population

111 Costa Rica has a long history of large public spending for the expansionand the improvement of the educational system from pre-school to universitylevel Efforts to date have resulted in a high participation rate of school-age population and to large drops in the levels of illiteracyespecially within some age groups The extension of the school eystem has also facilitated the monitoring of childrens health and contributed to the generalization of vaccination Within the pvimary schools the provision of meals to students has also served at least at one time as a major tool to fight malnutrition and ensure adequate development

4

2 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT

21 The Costa Rican population has increased three-fold since 1950 However consecutive population censuses over the last three decades show a progressive fall in the population growth rate suggesting a demographic transition but the rate is still above the world average and far from moderate The deceleration of demographic growth has been slow Adjusted populationfigures (new census data corrected for omissions and errors) estimated bythe Latin American Demographic Center (CELADE) indicate that the Costa Rican population increased from 18 million in 1973 to 25 million in 1984the intercensus growth rate being 290 per thousand per year This represents only a slight deceleration compared to the 1963-1973 intercensus period when the adjusted annual population growth rate was 305 per thousand2 and a significant decline from the 1950-196 rate of 340 per thousand (Table B-i)

The 1963-1973 population growth rate implies a doubling of the total population every 231 years By comparison at the current rate 245 years should elapse until such an increase is reached Thus the longshyrun drop in population growth has been significant The average rate of 361 per thousand through the 1950s and early 1960s represented a level at which total population doubles every 195 years

22 The still comparatively rapid and slowly declining population growth rate is a consequence of (1) a high birth rate diminishing at a very slow pace(2) a notably low death rate that has significantly decreased over the last two decades and (3) a net immigration rate that has becomf a significant factor over the last decade

23 Although fertility rates have fallen substantially compared to the peakreached a generation ago (by the mid-1950s the global fertility rate was 711) they continue to be relatively high In 1980-85 the average number of children per woman at the end of her fertile age was 350 08 children less than the 1970-75 average Despite the decrease of globaland age-specific fertility rates the crude birth rate hLs fallen verylittle since 1970-75 At that time it was 315 per thousand while the mean for the period 1980-85 was 302 per thousand The stability of the crude birth rate is the consequence of the increased weight of the women aged 15-29 years in the fertility structure (augmenting their relative importance from 609 to 667 per thousand from 1970-75 to 1980-85) which offset the drop of 115 per thousand in age specific fertility rate (even among young women) Although over this period these rates dropped 115 per thousand among women aged 15-29 years the weight of this group in the fertility structure increased by almost the same proportion (augmentingtheir relative importance from 609 per thousand to 667 per thousand)thus neutralizing the downward effect (Table B-7)

lIt has to be pointed out that unadjusted census figures show a much lower population growth rate 233 per thousand per year The omission rate for 1984 as calculated by CELADE is 57 equivalent to 146 thousand persons

2In this case the unadjusted population growth rate of 333 per thousand was higher than the adjusted one The reason for this is that according to CELADE estimates in 1973 there was an over counting of the female population

5

24 The mortality rate already very low continued decreasing throughout the 1970s and even the 1980s despite the economic crisis The grossmortality rate estimated at 58 per thousand for the period 1970-75declined by nearly one-third reaching 42 per thousand over 1960-85 Most of this drop may be explained by impressive fall in infant mortality (from526 per thousand to 233 per thousand) particularly during the 1970s As a consequence of this process life expectancy at birth experienced an important increase for both sexes from 681 years over 1970-75 to 735 years for the period 1980-85 (Table B-6) On average this represents a gain of 65 months per year

Since mortality decreased slightly faster than the crude birth rate (-17 over 1970-75 vs -13 over 1980-85) natural population growth did not drop in fact it accelerated in the second half of the 1970s onlyresuming its slow deceleration by the early 1980s (Table B-4)

25 During the 1980s mainly because of the Nicaraguan conflict international immigration to Costa Rica became a relatively significant factor affectingpopulation growth The net immigiation rate almost negligible until 1970shy75 reached a level of 3 per thousand per year over the decade 1975-1985 As a result the population growth rate increased from an average of 257 per thousand during the early 1970s to 297 per thousand over 1975-80 subsequently slowing to 29 per thousand per year through 1980-85

26 The demographic transition process that is taking place derives from changes in the age structure Although still very young the populationis progressively maturing as demonstrated by the evolution of the median age which from only 168 years in 1970 increased tc 210 years by 1985 This obviously means that would-be economically active age groups (iebetween 15-64 years) augmented their share of total population while theyconstituted 507 of the total in 1970 by 1985 their proportion amounted to 593 Over the same period the prime working-age groups (25-54years) increased their share from 272 to 331

6

3 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND INCOME

31 Between 1S70 and 1979 the Costa Rican economy grew at a average rate of 56 per year The leading sectors were construction (103)transportation (10) manufacturing (73) and public utilities (66) Agriculture was the least dynamic sector with an average annual growth rate of only 26 over the period

32 Value added by the Public Administration sector increased at an averageannual rate of 54 slightly below the national average Since value added in public administration is directly related to employment in this sector this figure means that the number of central government employees grew faster than the 4 annual average growth of the labor force thus indicating a growing role of the public administration in employment generation over the period

When autonomous institutions are included total public employment grew at an estimated 74 annual average over the decade This implies a particularly fast growth of employment in the autonomous institutions and an even greater role of the public sector in employment generation It is worth noting that in the 1970s the ceitral government labor force followed an anti-cyclical pattern with acceleration of the growth of employment during years when GDP decelerated

33 The strong performance of the Costa Rican economy during the last decade allowed for a fast growth in incomes

From 1970 to 1975 the average annual rate of growth in disposable national income (NDI) was 62 in real term In the second half of the decade the improvements in the terms of trade resulting from high coffee prices were translated in real increases in NDI of 191 in 1976 and 232 in 1977 Although coffee prices returned to a level closer to the historic trend in 1978 real NDI kept on growing until 1980 Overall from 1975 to 1980 national income in real terms grew at an average annual rate of 104

The fact that thu shares of labor and capital incomes within national income remained basically stable during the decade strongly suggests that labor and capital benefitted equally from the economic prosperity

34 The steady growth of labor income over the last decade is partiallyexplained by a substantial increase in employment Although the labor force grew at an average annual rate close to 4 a rate significantly higher than demographic growth unemployment rate remained stable in the range of 5 to 6 Thus the Costa Rican economy demonstrated a remarkable capacity for generating employment

But this successful absorption of a fast growing labor force was not achieved at the cost uf a reduction in real wages From 1970 to 1979 average individual wages calculated on the basis of surveys of Social Security Institute data and deflated by the consumer price index grew at an avorage annual rate of 54 with the major increases occurring in 1976 (+16) and 1977 (+115)

Labor therefore shared in the prosperity by increased employment and significant real increase in average wages

35 There are two sources of wage data in Costa Rica the Central Bank (BCCR)computation of total wages based on a survey of returns to the Social

7

Security Institute which gives an estimate of the total amount of wagesand salaries and the wage data picked up by the regular household surveyswith a detailed disaggregation by sector occupation and gender

After division by the average number of salaried workers per year and mensualization yields the BCCR and household surveys estimates of averagemonthly wage yield the same overall trend an average annual nominal growthof 21 per year between 1976 and 1986

However substantial differences exist between the two series The BCCR data after divding by the number of employees and mensualization yields an estimate of the average nominal wage 57 larger than the housenold survey estimate The difference may be due to an uncorrected under representation of agricultural workers in the BCCR sample due to the fact that rural coverage of the Social Security Institute is lower than urban coverage a hypothesis which could not be confirmed

Because household survey data provides more detailed information most of the following discussion will rely on this source of information

36 According to data from the household surveys at the end of the 1970s the lowest average monthly wage was found in agriculture (606 of national average) while the highest average wage was found in the public utilities sector (1374 of average)

However the sectoral differences in household income were probably less marked than average wage data implies The household survey only accounts for monetary income and does nut impute value to other items such as food and housing provided by the employer which typically make up a significantshare of agricultural workers income

Regional differences in agricultural average household income are probablyquite significant due to quality cf land and institutional structures It is reported for example that in the large banana plantationsagricultural workers do not get a plot of land for private use and most of their income is in monetary fcrm In the department of Guanacaste poorland and large inefficient cattle operations have led to low levels of income and some of the largest pockets of poverty in Costa Rica In the Central Valley in contrast good land and access to alternative employmenthas resulted in a much more prosperous situation

37 The last decade was marked by a high wage differential between the public and private sectors In 1979 after a slight reduction in the relative growth of public sector wages monthly wages in the central government and autonomous institutions were respectively 676 and 603 above the national average In contrast private sector wages were 79 of the national average

This public-private differential was particularly accentuated at the lowest levels of qualification but persisted although in decreasing importanceall the way to the technical category Only at the very top level of qualification did the private sector shcw a positive differential of less than 10

Public sector wages may be characterized as more compressed toward the highend of wages than the private sector Introducing gender as an additional variable makes clear that the male-female wage differential is much less pronounced in public than in private employment This may explain why a very high proportion of qualified and educated working women have soughtemployment in the public sector

8

38 This period of increasing prosperity came to an end during 1979 when the fall in coffee prices and the second oil shock combined to exacerbate the bottleneck in the development strategy followed by Costa Rica The Costa Rican economic structure and performance rested on an import-dependent industrial sector oriented toward internal demand while foreign currencygeneration depended on the performance of the primary agricultural sector However the expansion of primary exports was restricted by international demand in the case of coffee and supply limitations in other products

The increase in domestic demand made possible by two years of substantial real wage increase had led in 1978 to a rapid income in imports and a deterioration of the balance of trade

The combined initial weakness of the external balance and the high degreeof openness of the Costa Rican economy amplified the impact of the reversal of the terms of trade between 1978 and 1979

39 In the period 1976-1980 the macroeconomic policy followed by Costa Rican authorities may be best described as sinning by optimism In 1976 the increase in the terms of trade due to the jump in coffee prices was translated into disproportionate real wage increases as if this new situation was permanent rather than temporary In 1979 macroeconomic policy aimed at maintaining internal demand mainly through increased publicspending as i the terms of trade deterioration from the peak of 1977 was only a transitory phenomenon

As it was the policy followed in late 1979 to 1981 led to a massive reserves loss a sharp increase in foreign debt crowding out of privateinvestment and a sharp acceleration of inflation

310 The subsequent economic recession resulted in a total loss in GDP of 87 from 1979 to the end of 1982 The sectors most affected were Construction (a total drop of 459) Commerce (-18) and Manufacturing (-12)

The fixed exchanqe rate allowed manufacturing firms to maintain their imports of raw materials and semi-finished products But the resultinghemorrhage of reserves forced the Costa Rican authorities to suspend publicdebt service in 1981

The deepening crisis finally pushed the Costa Rican government to seek helpfrom multilateral and bilateral agencies Extended negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) the World Bank and USAID led to a program which included the following policy objectives containinginflationary pressures maintaining a realistic exchange rate and resumingthe public debt service payments As a part of the overall package Costa Rican authorities reduced the public sector deficits by introducing new taxes and reducing or abolishing subsidies

311 The crisis of the early 1980s had a significant impact on the economic well-being of the population According to figures from the Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR) and household surveys average real wages dropped 46 in 1980 117 in 1981 and 222 in 1982 for a cumulative loss of 345

There are reasons however to suspect that this fall in the average wageis overestimated First real GDP or private consumption did not show contractions compatible with this figure also the methodology used for the computation of total wages and salaries is based on surveys of companyincome tax returns and social security contributions The universe from which the survey samples are drawn is probably biased toward large and medium-sized firms more likely to make regular reports to authorities due to their relatively high visibility Those firms may have been the most affected by the crisis

9

PREALC has reported that in fact the proportion of the labor force working in establishments of less than five workers increased from 284 to 333 between 1979 anc 1982 while the proportion working in establishments of more than ten workers decreased from 597 to 533

Therefore although it is undeniable that real wages fell between 1980 and1982 it appears that the methodology for calculating the total wage bill of the economy failed by not taking into account a change in the occupational structure

312 Unemployment rates almost doubled from 49 in 1979 to a peak of 94 in 1982 In the private sector salaried employment declined sharply in construction (-25 in 1982 compared to 1980) and manufacturing (-86 in 1981) Labor force reductions of 143 in 1981 and 53 in 1982 in the public utilities sector indicate a pro-cyclical adjustment in this partof the public sector

Employment surveys also indicate a sharp increase in the number of workers who could or did not specify their main sector of activity a possibleindication of an inreao in alternative temporary job positions

The increase in the unemployment rate was not dui to a decrease in the number of employed individuals On the contrary the number of employedindivduals increased every year between 1980 and 1982 The growth of unemployment was the consequence of increases in participation rates and in he global labor force

The reduction in real individual incomes pushed inactive household members to search for work to prevent a proportional fall ii family income It is quite likely that on average real household incomes fell less than real individual incomes

313 The structure of average wages by economic sector was altered somewhat during the crisis period of 1979-1982 In particular average wagesincreases in the utilities sector tended to lag behind other sectors Agricultural wages however tended to increase faster than the averageThis is an expected indication of the lesser wage volatility in agriculture But in this case it had a particular significance

If income in kind which typically makes up a significant fraction of total agricultural wages is included average agricultural incomes in real terms must have been less affected than urban incomes in the inflationary periodof 1979 to 1982 thus providing an incentive for individuals with ruralopportunities to return to the fields Such a reversal of rural-urban migration appears to have occurred in Costa Rica between 1981 and 1982

314 Between 1981 and 1982 according to data from the household surveys for the month of July salaried employment in agriculture increased by 21600while total national salaried employment increased by 21700 In other words the agricultural sector created almost the totality of jobsnationwide

There exists an oddity in the simultaneous growth of agriculturalemployment by 169 increases of nominal wages by 497 and a drop in agricultural output by 497 No major crop experienced a growth in outputwhich could justify such massive hiring

A significant share of this huge employment increase is probably due to a statistical aberration it appears that in 1982 the coffee harvest had to start much sooner than usual Although employment data for the month

10

of July is considered a good approximation for average annual employmentin 1982 the figures seem to have been affected by seasonal patternsnormally observed in later months therefore leading to an overestimation of employment for 1982

Adjusting these figures by the 9 to 12 seasonal increase in agriculturalemployment observed in previous years still yield an increase in salaried agricultural employment in the range of 5 to 8 for 1982 or rates significantly higher than historical averages

Within this range the increase in agricultural employment may not be soodd Agricultural producer prices were increasing in 1981 and 1982 significantly faster than the national producer price average and althoughagricultural nominal wages grew relatively to the national average it is likely that in real income they fell

315 A major concern for President Monge and his advisors during the extended negotiations with the IMF the World Bank and USAID was the potential for a disintegration of social and political stability in Costa Rica Given the volatile and often violent political situation in other countries of the region this concern may have acquired a particular importance

The need to preserve stability at a time when major changes in thedevelopment strategy were being discussed implied the preservation of the core of social policies and programs which had been implemented over the past decades while trimming the redistributive excesses

The key word used to describe the process of adjustment would begradualism What has often been described as a failure to adjust may well have been a reluctance to resort to shock treetment but rather to stretch the timing of the process

In fact employment growth was negative in the public sector as early as1981 and wages in these institutions lagged behind other sectors Thisreversal of employment and wage patterns indicates (3) a significant changeof public policy compared to the 1970s and (2) that contrary to some perceptions concerning (at least) the public sector the adjustment processstarted as early as the end of 1980

The process of adjustment appears also to have been a process of rotation of the burden among various social sectors inclading workers publicadministration and industrialists during the period 1981 to 1984 As a result this difficult task was accomplished without major sociopolitical disruptions

316 Nevertheless the crisis and consequent fall in real monetary incomes must have come as a rude shock for the Costa Rican population especially in the wake of hefty rises in real incomes during 1976 to 1978

It has already been suggested that average real wages did not iall by asmuch as had been reported and that most probably the increase inparticipation rates led to a fall in real household income less thanproportionai to average workers income It also appears that agricultural wages fared better than other secturs

But an assassment of the actual impact of the crisis has to take into account the transfers and income-in-kind - - such as imputed home rentsself consumption - - available to the different socioeconomic groups

317 Although no information was available on the relative importance of these elements in total household income prior to the crisis indications of their role may be discerned from a survey done in 1983

11

Two points must be made about this survey First since it does not include the transfers implicit in access to subsidized public sector services it tends to underestimate the actual importance of the real components of total household income Second since it was conducted in 1983 the survey probably includes the emergency transfer programsimplemented by Costa Rican authorities during the crisis and overstates the relative importance of these real components of income in a normal period

It should come as no surprise that the share of transfers and income in kind in total household income increases as total income decreases Thisis due to the fact that the value of these items represents a larger share of total income as monetary income falls all the more so since publicgoods and services provisions particularly the emergency transfers are targeted to the poorest groups in the population

318 In 1983 206 of average total household income originated in imputed rentand public and private transfers Self-consumption was negligiblerepresenting only 16 of total household income and a low 46 in rural areas

Income in the form of public services and transfers represented 297 oftotal income for the bottom 20 of the urban population and 531 for the equivalent rural group

The importance of these elements of total household income was significantduring the period of crisis As they represented a higher percentage ofincome for poor households they tended to cushion these households fromthe fall in average real wages and to redistribute positively income between social groups

On the basis of these figures it appears that poor rural households must have fared substantially better than poor urban households Combined withthe previously mentioned relative advance in agricultural wages comparedto the national average this constitutes another incentive for the temporary reversal of rural-urban migration that occurred in the early1980s

319 As noted earlier Costa Rican authorities implemented a temporary Social Compensation Program The program distributed food to 42000 (or 8 of all Costa Rican households) of the poorest households

The program also created some 6000 local government and community works jobs for unemployed workers

These programs were targeted toward the segments of the population most in need of assistance and helped prevent a very serious deterioration of their living conditions over the period

The rapid implementation of these programs was possible because the earlier concern for social equity led to the creation of a number of socialmonitoring institutions and service provision agencies which had gainedvaluable experience in the previous decades

320 The stabilization measures adopted by the Costa Rican government between 1981 and 1983 resulted in a substantial reduction of the relative size ofthe overall public sector deficit a major reduction in the external trade imbalance and a drop in inflation from 902 in 1982 to 326 in 1983

GDP grew 29 in 1983 and positive growth has been maintained since then However substantial variations in the annual rates from to 19871983

12

(eg only 07 growth in 1985 after 80 in 1984) and a lower averagegrowth rate compared to the 1970s suggest that the recovery is still tentative

After several years of falling real incomes the Costa Rican governmenttook advantage of the incipient recovery to substantially irci=ase real minimum wages and implement a biannual indexation mechaniso This policy was aimed not only at raising the standard of living of the population but also at boosting internal demand to sustain the recovery

Public sector wages did not increase at the same rate as the national average In 1983 central government wages were only 45 over the national average (as compared to 678 in 1979) while private wages were 157 below the national average (as compared to 21 in 1979) This trend in the institutional structure of wages has been maintained to the presentAt the same time as public sector wages were restricted in growth bonuses were granted to the upper levels oi government technocrats implying that the wage structure of the public sector has become closer to that of the private sector

321 The lasting impact of the crisis and of the microeconomic adjustments necessary to overcome it may be seen in a comparison of the structure of wages and employment by institutional sectors and genders

Employment in the Public sector fell from 259 in 1980 to 157 in 1987 While in 1980 233 of males and 344 of females earning salaries were employed by the public sector in 1987 these rates were 133 and 221 This shift implies a much reduced role of the public sector in employmentcreation particularly for females and a much greater reliance on the private sector

As mentioned earlier the differential between private and public sector wages has been reduced However most of this adjustment originates in the Central government Employees of autonomous institutions have actually succeeded in increasing their wages faster than the average

The differential between male and female wages increased during the periodThe shift in female employment from the public to the private sector would have caused this increase in inequality if the wage structure had remained the same But the wage differential actually increased in the publicsector The substantial widening of the gap in the autonomous institutions more than compensated for the reduction in wage differential in the public sector

One cause of the relative loss of female wages in the wage structure maybe the increased female participation rate It is likely that a highproportion of educated women was already in the labor force and that the increase in participation originated among less educated women which woold command lower salaries thus reducing the average for female wages The central government decreased hiring may have led to a shift toward more qualified individuals and therefore reduced the differential

322 By 1984 real disposable nationa2 income was back to its level of 1980 Labor has benefitted from this improved economic situation In July of 1986 the unemployment rate returned to its 1976 levels despite continued increases in the labor force By 1985 global wages and salaries wereabove the level of 1980 Average real wages in 1986 were still laggingsomewnat but were close to the level of 1978

Preliminary figures for 1987 indicate that this improvement in the employment and wage situation has been sustained

13

323 In summary it may be said that the crisis was of short duration Its impact was severely felt because it broke a trend of rapidly increasingliving standards and shattered expectations However especially in comparison with other countries of the region it appears to have been relatively mild in terms of lost output The short duration of the criais also prevented a severe deterioration of real incomes and allowed for a faat recuperation

A certain number of institutional factors such as social programs and a high level of income in kind combined to dampen the effects of the economic downturn for the poorest income groups

14

4 EMPLOYMENT

41 Fast population growth leads to fast labor force increass Thishistorical pattern continues today in Costa Rica The average annualgrowth rate of the economically active population over the last three-andshya-half decades (the intercensus period 1950-1984) was 333 per thousand per year (ie slightly above the total population grcwth rate of 326 per thousand for the same cycle) As a result the labor force increasedthree-fold from less than 300000 in 1950 to almost 900000 in 1984

While the lonq-term trend of total population growth was decreasing laborgrowth followed an upward trend and growth accelerated from 260 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 364 per thousand during 1963-1973 and anextraordinarily high 396 per thousand during 1973-1984 3 The ratiobetween both growth rates (labor forcetotal population) increased from 076 for 1950-1963 to 119 over 1963-1973 and 135 through 1973-1984 This means that during the past twenty years the Costa Rican labcr force grew25 faster than the total population a rate that increased to 35 over the last intercensus period

42 The main reason for these contrasting trends labor force and totalpopulation is the time lag between birth and entry into the labor market This lag increasee paRni passu with economic development in Costa Rica maybe estimated at 15 years This means that an eventual slowing down ofpopulation 4growth will not affect the labor force until a decade-and-ashyhalf later thus Llie current Costa Rican labor force growth rate isinfluenced by the rate of population growth of a decade-and-a-half agowhen as seen earlier it peaked

43 Labor force growth is determined not only by past total population growthbut also by (i) the age structure of the population and (2) age-specificlabor force participation rates

Regarding the first factor the progressive maturing of the age structure implias that the would-be economically active population has beenincreasing its relative weight and thus given a set of labor forceparticipation rates augmenting the size and growth rate of the labor force5 A standardization exercise aimed at isolating that effect shows

3These growth rates are based on adjusted population figures Raw census data show a different picture a growth rate accelerating from 282 perthousand during 1950-1963 to 388 per thousand for the decade 1963-1973 and then slowing to 287 per thousand over 1973-1984 The apparentdeceleration during the last period derives from both underestimation oftotal population and a significant amount of incorrect activity status categorization in the 1984 Census (this factor also lowered the labor force participation rate) According to CELADE (1988b) the 1984 Censusunderestimated the size of the labor force by 14 (approximately 90000persons) two-thirds of which corresponded to omissions of total populationand the remaining one-third to inaccurate statement of activity status

4As a matter of fact in the short run a deceleration of total populationgrowth may result in an increase of labor force growth This may happen(and often actually does) if as a consequence of decreasing fertility more women enter the labor market

5In other words even under constant age-specific participation rates there is an increase in the gross participation rate

15

that the actual increase of the relative weight of prime working-age groups over the 1973-1984 period explain almost 4 of the size of the labor force at the end of that span and about one-tenth of the growth rate between both years

44 The second factor concerns the age-specific labor force participation rates which tend to change over time but not necessarily all in the same direction

Marginal age groups (ie those below 15 years of age anu those aged 65 and over) tend to decrease their participation the labor market which is at the same time a consequence of economic development and social progressand an indicator of that progress The ratio of actives in the marginal ages to actives between 15 and 64 years of age declined from 96 in 1950 to 53 in 1984 with over one-half (54) of this decrease achieved duringthe intercensus period of 1973-1984 despite the crisis years of the early 1980s

However as a reflection structural and cultural change associated with modernization female participation rates tend to rise The specificparticipation rate of women of child bearing age is a better indicator of these social trends than the overall female participation The participation rate for this group was below 20 until the mid-1960s but increased to over 25 by the mid-1980s Nearly two-thirds of this increase was concentrated among women aged 25-44 years most of them married and with children This group accounted for 69 of female labor force growth over 1973-1984 30 of this growth was explained by the increase in their age-specific participation rates

45 Given the high and rapidly increasing laboz force growth rate a troublesome employment scenario could have readily developed However with the brief exception of the crisis period (1981-1984) the labor market performed remarkably well Not only was unemployment relatively low (the average for the period 1976-1986 including the crisis years was 66)but significantly most new jobs were generated by the modern sector thus keeping both the rural traditional and urban informJl sectors within a relatively small size There was also a rise in real wages despite a severe dampening effect during the crisis years

6Over the 1976-1986 period slightly more than 250000 persons entered the labor market during the same time span almost 240000 new jobs were created 7 Employment kept growing every year of this decade even duringthe early 1980s when the crisis seriously affected the (formal) demandfor labor

46 It has been argued that the employmenc level was sustained by the public sector Employment in the Central Government and in che autonomous institutions which amounted to only 505 thousand (or 133 of the employed labor force) in 1963 grew to 830 thousand (153) in 1973 then to 1461 thousand (189) in 19P3 and finally to 1686 thousand (197)

6The employment and unemployment series based on household surveys(conducted three times a year by the Direccion General de Estadistica yCensos) starts in 1976 Unless otherwise stated all figures refer to July of each year

7It should be noted that this does not mean that the new jobs were necessarily occupied by the new entrants to the labor market In factthe unemployment rate among the youngest workers stayed well above the average suggesting that a significant proportion of the new jobs were fillet by and probably created for experienced workers

16

in 1986 This means that throughout this 23-year period employment in the public sector increased at a rate of 54 per year almost 35 faster than the national average

47 The increase in public sector jobs however contributed only a minor partto overall employment generation For the same long-term period 1963shy1986 the average public sector share of total job creation was 249 This implies that the private sector created three out of every four new jobs This fact does not diminish the signifcance of the labor absorptioncapacity of the public sector it merely sets the proper perspective in which to assess the sectors occupational role8

48 Public employment creations in the early 1970s tended to have an antishycyclical pattern It grew significantly faster than average during periodsof economic slowdown The economic prosperity created by the high pricefor coffee after 1975 led to a very rapid expansion of public employment(peaking at 84) which persisted to the end of the decade as publicauthorities attempted to couniteract the effects of the terms of trade reversal

In the 1980s however public employment creation followed a more proshycyclical pattern During the economic crisis of the early 1980s the public sector did not contribute to maintaining employment levels In fact in 1982 the -iorst year of the crisis public employment decreased by 52 although groth in public sector employment resumed after the adjustmentof 19811-82 it was less vigorous than in the 1970s

49 The Costa Rican economy has experienced a structural change over the last three decades with a major element of that change involving the shift of a large proportion of the labor force from the agricultural sector to the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy The share of the labor force engaged in agriculture dropped from 547 in 1950 to 383 in 1973 and 275 in 1980-1985 Not only did the agriculzural share drop by oreshyhalf from 1950 to 1985 but the shift toward the non-agricultural sectors accelerated throughout the period five percentage points over 1950-1963115 points over 1963-1973 and 108 points over 1973-19809

410 But unlike the case of most Latin American countries this shift did not result in a significant increase of the urban informal sector Althoughthe relative importance of the informal sector climbed during the structural change because of the shift of workers toward non-agriculturalactivities this increase was relatively moderate The share of nonshyprofessional self-employed and unpaid family workers employed in nonshyagricultural activities grew from 6 of the total labor force in 1950 to 9 in 1980 If domestic servants are added the snare increases to 12 and 14 respectively When only the non-agricultural labor force is considered however the relative significance of the above-mentioned categories falls from 143 in 1950 to 132 in 1980 Although these calculations underestimate the real size of the informal sector and the

It should be noted that the labor-absorption capacity of the public sector is especially important for well-educated job seekers constituting their primary source of employment According to the 1984 Census 41 of those employed in public services (ie central government and autonomous institutions) have a university (ie at least 13 years) education

9An important consequence of the economic crisis of the early 1980s is that it halted this sectoral transfer

17

magnitude of its evolution0 they bear out the picture of limited informal sector expansion

411 The explanation for this moderate and unusual trend of urban informal sector growth centers on two factors (1) just as agriculture was diminishing its occupational role the urban modern sectors (private and public) were increasing theirs and (2) the rural labor surplus (asestimated by the share of the labor force in traditional agriculture)which constitutes the main supplier for the urban informal sector was already relatively low at the time when the process of structural change began

412 The non-agricultural modern sectors which shared 30 of total employmentin 1950 enlarged their participation to 54 in 1980 14 percentage pointsof this increase stemmed from the expansion of the public sector (whichfrom an initial 6 augmented its share to 20 in 1980) while the remaining10 points resulted from the growth of the private sector From this perspective the important role played by the central government and autonomous institutions is apparent However because the public sector tends to hire a large proportion of individuals with higher than averageeducation the link between public sector expansion and stability of the informal sector is weak A major part of the intersectoral transfer of the rural labor surplus was channeled through and ahsorbed by the modern urban private sector it may be estimated that during 1950-1958 the employment growth rate of this sector was 42 per year one-quarter facter than the average growth rate of the labor force

413 As previously noted the rural labor surplus was relatively small at the beginning of the cycle of structural change In 1950 no more than one out of every five Costa Rican workers (or one out of every three agricultural

1 1workers) was employed in traditional agriculture in 1980 that share had fallen to one-tenth of the labor force although it still constituted oneshythird of the now much smaller agricultural labor force

414 This comparatively small rural labor surplus partly explains why unlike in most Latin American countries the internal immigration flows were relatively moderate during a period of intense modernization12 During the 1963-1973 intercerisus period the average population growth rate of the metropolitan area was only 08 percentage p-ints hiqher than the national population growth rate over the 1973-1984 intercensus period (which covers the boom as well as crisis years) the differential was only 02 percentage points per year

415 The long-term trend of economic progress which boosted real wages by 60 over the 1970s came to a temporary end in 1979-80 This period which Costa Ricans refer to as the crisis had severe consequences on the labor market Open unemployment which traditionally fluctuated around 5climbed to 87 in 1961 and 94 in 1982 The number of unemployed almost doubled between 1979 and 1981 from less than 37000 to more than 69000

10 Owners and salaried workers of small (micro) enterprises which from a conceptual standpoint form part of the informal sector are not included thus underestimating its real size

11 Traditional agriculture is defined here as made up of small farmers who cultivate their land themselves with the help of unpaid familylabor and do not have permanent paid workers

12 Another major reason is that in the Central Valley where about 70 of the total population is concentrated almost no location is farther than one hour by bus from San Jos6

18

in 1982 when unemployment peaked the number of jobless totaled 79200The growth rate of the unemployed population averaged 29 per year between 1979 and 1982

416 Notwithstanding this significant and unprecedented increase of openunemployment the level of employment never fell over the crisis periodAlthough the job creation rate fell sharply to 09 in 1979-80 and to only05 in 1980-81 (from a previous rate of 5) it remained positiveMoreover in 1982 when the economic crisis peaked and unemployment reached a maximumemployment grew at a rate of 5 matching the rate advanced through the bonanza years

417 The difference with respect to the pre-crisis years lies in the sectoral composition of employment generation As previously discussed during the 1960s and most of the 1970s the employment creation process was led bythe modern urban sectors By contrast the urban informal and rural traditional were the leading sectors over 1980-1983 Almost one-half (48)of the jobs generated corresponded to the urban informal sector while an additional 20 were created by the rural tradiaional sector The urban sector expelled workers during this crisis period reducirg its relative and absolute size for the first time in more than two decades

418 These data suggest that the labor market adjustment process wan of a mixed nature featuring fairly traditional elements (namely an abrupt rise in open unemployment and an equally abrupt fall in real wages) and revealingthe resilience of the Costa Rican economy in the fast and important growthof the traditional and informal sectors This mixed adjustment model iI an expression of the middle-of-the-road (although comparatively advanced)modernization process experienced so far by Costa Rica The strength of this long-term trend is demonstrated by the fact that as aoon as the economy overcame the crisis unemployment not only decreased to its historical level but the modern (private and public) sectors resumed their leading ole in job generation Over the 1983-1985 period the privateurban modern sector created almost 25000 new jobs sharply contrastingwith a reduction of 1700 jobs in this sector during 1980-1983 The contribution of the private urban modern sector to overall employmentgrowth over the post-crisis biennium was 42 while that of the public sector was 20

419 Two importnt mechanisms arose during the crisis years (1) after a brief decrease in the initial stages of the crisis (the discouraged worker effect) activity rates experienced significant growth (the additional worker effect) resulting in an extraordinarily high labor force increase of 58 in 1982 the worst year of this period and (2) sectoral migrationflows tended to decrease despite an increase of emigration from the Metropolitan Area toward the rural areas

420 Along with the quantitative adjustment through reduced employment the labor force suffered a severe fall in real wages The level of wages index dropped to 808 in 1982 from 1305 in 1979 (1976 = 100) This means that in three years salaried workers lost 38 on average much more than theyhad accrued during the bonanza years

421 However total labor income may not have fallen so severely Quite probably income from informal activities did not drop as much as wagesand may have even increased during the crisis years This trend could have resulted from a shift in the composition of demand toward goods and services supplied by informa workers triggered by falling real incomes and the effects of exchange rate depreciation In other words as both imported and domestically produced new durable goods became more expensiveand consumers kept their old ones the demand increased for maintenance services provided by the informal sector Thus total income may have

19

increased in this sector even if per capita income did not This would be consistent with the fact that disposable personal income fell less than the wage rate

20

5 SOCIAL WELFARE

51 The Costa Rican government hab maintained a commitment to the universaldelivery of basic health care and 3ocial services unequaled throughoutCentral America This commitment has fostered government policies andinterventions designeQ to translate the economic growth of the 1960s and1970s into improved standards of living for all sectors of the populationand has prompted subbtantial resource allocations in support of these policies

Costa Rica expends a high per capita on social expenditures (Table D-1)Although per capita expenditures for education and health decreased slightly during the period from 1980-1982 (Figure D-l) total publioutlays in these sectors increased at a fairly constant rate throughoutthe 1980s (Table D-2)

52 Nevertheless in recent years there has been growing concern amonggovernment officials and research institutions13 that these expenditureshave not been evenly distributed and that access to higher-qualityeducation and health services is biased in favor of the Central Valleyregion home to 70 of the Costa Rican population To substantiate theseclaims these experts point to various pockets of poverty along the border areas with Nicaragua and Panama as well as to regions along the Atlanticand Pacific Coast Three Costa Rican provinces Limon Guanacaste andPuntaren-i consistently lag below national averages in a variety of health and education indicators as will be detailed below

53 In response to such concerns the government developed action plans (egthe 1971 National Health Plan and the 1973 National Plan of Educational Development and General Health Law) stressing an integrative approach toimproving environmental conditions and educational coverage in these areas These plans provided the basis for specific programs to be

14

described below that spearheaded the progress achieved during the 1970s

54 Administrative overhauls were undertaken to improve coordination between government agencies as a means of expanding service delivery and themonitoring of conditions in rural areas As part of the new administrativefocus rural areas (ie villages) were classified as rural concentrated (between 500 and 2000 inhabitants) or rural dispersed (less than 500 inhabitants)

By 1979 government programs reached nearly 60 of the rural populationMost importantly 95 of program beneficiaries were rural-dispersedvillagers without previous access to health services in the Central Valley(San Jose is within 1-2 hours distance of most of the rural villages inthe Central Valley the residents of which generally prefer to use the urban services)

13 See Sistema de Indicadores Sociales (SIS) de Costa Rica Diferencias geoQrdficas en el nivel de desarrollo social 1984 MIDEPLAN 1987and Los grupos sociales de riesgo para la sobrevida infantil 1960shy1984 CELADE 1987

14 Mata and Rosero p 37

21

55 The extensive delivery of social services provided by the Costa Rican government in large part served to cushion the impact of the economiccrisis of 1980 to 1982 such that the country experienced only milddeclines in the major health indicators during and after the period

In fact the infant mortality rate--the lowest of the region--reached itslowest point in 1981 (1800 deaths per 1000 live births) and by 1982had only increased by 070 percentage points (187 deaths per 1000 live births)

Likewise undernourishment rates for children aged 0-6 years continued todecrease regularly throughout the period in spite of decreases in publichealth expenditures in real terms after 1981 This success is attributable to concentrated programs initiated during the crisis which increasedexpenditures for school feeding centers and provided special food allowances to poor households

56 Although the successes achieved in Costa Rican social welfare especiallyduring the 1970s are impressive the economic hard times of the 19amp0s have led to decreased rates of improvement in most areas In view offunding cutbacks in many programs and prospects for continued fundingconstraints in the near future conditions must be monitored closely toavoid retrogressions that would nullify previous progress particularlyin the rural areas at the lower end of health indicator scales

57 Throughout the 20th century the Costa Ricdn government has sought to promote the health of public school students using schools as a vehiclefor delivering food and nutrition education to preschool and primary schoolstudents and their mothers Whereas past efforts were more communityshyoriented in terms of Fcructure and funding the government has recentlyassumed a more active role in expanding and improving program coverageparticularly for rural areas showing persistent deficits in healthindicators (eg heightage deficits anong the children of agriculturalworkers) vis-a-vis urban areas

Government efforts have centered primarily on the Directorate for SocialDevelopment and Family Allowances (DESAF) established in 1976 to allocate resources to government agencies involved in providing food assistance tofamilies with scarce resources (as a means of boosting their incomes)through the existing institutional framework This framework consists of three food assistance program outlets

(1) Comedores escolares or school feeding centers

(2) Centers for Education and Nutrition (CEN) and

(3) Centers for Integrated Child Assistance (CINAI)

Although the broad program objectives are essentially the same for each the specific purposes of each type of outlet vary

58 Thc comedores are designed to provide two hot meals (breakfast and lunch)every day to children aged 2-12 years with dietary guidelines providedby the Ministry of Health (MOH) the program itself however isadministered by the Ministry of Public Education (MPE) With theuniversalization of the program a major goal coverage as of 1986 stood at 814 of public schools and 866 of potential beneficiaries15 These

15 Ministries of Public Education Work amp Social Security and HealthAntecedents and Reorganization of the Comedores Escolares ProgramAug 1987 p 14

22

figures may be misleading as to program effectiveness however because of a lack of strict qualifying criteria for schools chosen and students served Although broad coverage may not be problematical in and of itself program effectiveness in reaching the target low-income families may suffer as a result

This problem has been exacerbated by resource constraints during the yearsof economic crisis Although the comedores program received a stable 44 of DESAF funds from 1981 to 1986 funding levels declined in real terms over the same period A more serious problem has been the decliningquality of the food distributed through the program Although programfunding allocated for food increased 27 times over 1981-1985 caloricconsumption per beneficiary dropped by over 50 (Table E-6) The decline in caloric consumption resulted from increases in the prices of programfoods (eg rice beans) that were much greater than the fundingincreases failure to adjust the dietary content to account for higherinflation and greater resource constraints and greater increases infunding for personnel salaries relative to funding for food By 1986 the

16 program cost per beneficiary was ten times greater than in 1976

59 The CEN and CINAI programs both under the auspices of the MOH emphasizemeeting the nutritional and health needs of preschool-aged children andpregnant andor lactating mothers again with a focus on providing hot meals in rural areas Compared to the comedores these programs providea better quality of food more available resources and more specializedpersonnel and services (eg psychologists day care social workersspecial education) reflecting the integrative program approach They arealso substantially more expensive to operate than the comedores In 1982for example a CEN cost an average of 2938 colones per month perbeneficiary and a CINAI 20447 colones per month while the comedores cost a monthly average of 734 colones per beneficiary17 With the majority ofthe CEN and CINAI centers concentrated in the Central Valley adequate coverage for the hard-to-reach rural target population remains a problem(Total coverage figures for the comedores CEN and CINAI programs are givenin Table D-4)

510 Preschoolers who benefited from a feeding center (CEN or CINAI) were worseoff in 1978 than children nationwide particularly in rural dispersed areaswhich may be a consequence of the targeting in the program In 1982however they were significantly better off This change is probably the combined result of the effectiveness of the program and a change in the social composition of children enrolled in preschools the increasedfemale participation rates of urban mothers let to an increased reliance on day care for exposed children

511 The MOH administers food distribution programs apart from the hot meals programs A milk distribution program has beer in effect since 1950 while another program was initiated in 1977 to distribute focd to families withseverely undernourished children The MPE and the Office of the President also sponsor food distribution programs

As noted above these programs have had some knotty problems A lack ofeffective measurement and information management systems as well as a lack of coordination and frequent overlapping of function -among the governmentagencies involved has hindered efforts to isolate and quantify the program

16 MOH and MPE Diagnosis of the Functioning of Nutrition Programs in Costa Rica Dec 1987 pp 206-207

17 MIDEPLAN Los efectos de la inversion social en Costa Rica 1982 pp 24-25

23

impact on nutritional gains achieved during the 1970s and 1980s It cansafely be stated however that they played at least a small role insoftening the adverse nutritional impact of the economic crisis among the vulnerable sectors that they were able to reach

512 Height censuses of first-grade primary school children conducted in 19791981 1983 and 1985 indicate a pattern of low and regularly decreasingundernourishment rates in Costa RicA (Table E-1) It should be noted thatCosta Ricas undernourishment rates are the lowest in the region

Between 1979 and 1985 combined moderate and severe undarnourishment18 dropped from 204 of surveyed children to 113 a decrease of 446 Only18 of undernourished children in were1985 classified as severelyundernourished (ie below -3 SD) Approximately 39 of theseundernourished children came from salaried agricultural worker familiesindicating that this problem persists in the rural areas

513 Undernourishment rates measured by nutritional surveys (1965-1967 and 1978shy1982) conducted by INCAP for all Central American countries (children aged0-5 years) also show an important reduction in undernourishment for bothweightage and heightage indicator3 A comparison of data from the two surveys shows a 625 decrease in weightage undernourishment (from 163to 61) and a 734 decrease in heightage undernourishment (from 241 to 64) The largest declines occurred in 1975 shortly after the government established universal primary health care programs (Figure Eshy1)

514 The 1978 and 1982 national nutrition surveys presented according to theGomez and Iowa classifications (see Tables E-2 E-3 and E-4) overestimatechild undernourishment rates because theof classification criteriaselected (ie the Gomez classification instead of Z-Scores)Nevertheless the data do allow for comparisons between trends and providedetails about areas of residency and age groups

515 Nationally the proportion of normal children weightageby increasedbetween 1978 and 1982 in spite of tne crisis (from 427 to 519 ofsurveyed children) while that of children with second-degreeundernourishment decreased to 33 from 82 The progress achievedhowever was greater in the urban areas (where the proportion of normalchildren jumped 137) compared to the rural areas the rural concentrated areas showed a 76 increase in the normal category while the ruraldispersed normal children increased 81 (Table E-2) Similarly whilefirst-degree undernourishment dropped substantially in all three areasthe decrease was much greater in the urban (145) than in the ruralconcentrated (51) and rural dispersed (29) areas Totalundernourishment by weightage was al 249 in urban areas in 1982 wellbelow the 334 and 421 rates for rural concentrated and rural dispersed areas respectively

516 Under Iowa classifications of the weightheight indicator (Table E-3)764 of Costa Rican children were normal in 1982 up from 658 in 1978Increases in the urban areas (117) were only slightly above those in therural concentrated (90) and rural dispersed (112) areas Although the 1982 rural-urban disparity in total undernourishment was not as great underweightheight as under weightage the regional differences inweightheight widened over the 1978-1982 period In other words as withweightage the urban areas showed greater improvement

18 Classified with Z-Scores (all children below -2 SD) see Annex E for anthropometric data

24

517 The heightage indicator (Table E-4) points to greater nutritional paritybetween the urban and rural areas than under weightage or weightheightNationally the proportion of normal children by heightage grew from 610in 1978 to 693 in 1982 with the increase in the rural concentrated(68) and rural dispersed (116) areas keeping pace with that of theurban areas (79) Total heightage undernourishment stood at 29 forurban areas in 1982 compared to 36 for rural concentrated areas and 46 for rural dispersed areas

518 Overall these data suggest that despite the gains achieved in combatingmalnutrition rural areas in Costa Rica have shown slower rates ofimprovement compared to uroan areas especially since the onset of thecrisis Most probably the difficulty lies in the infrastructural problemsof reaching small disseminated populations Eradicating childundernourishment in the rural areau will likely be a persistent problemand an increase defensive goal in the absence of specific targeting for prograin interventions

519 In spite of the 1980-1982 crisis Costa Rica experienced an overallimprovement in the average levels of food intake from 1978 to 1982 (ableE-8) Most of this increased consumption comes from the rural area In1978 rural consumption registered a deficit of 4 versus 2 in J982The data indicate varying evolutionary patterns of food consumption iii theurban areas Table E-7 shows for example that caloric intake in theurban areas remained adequcte (99 of the minimum daily requirement)between 1978-1982 On the other hand Mata Roserothe and studyregisters a deficit of 135 in the daily intake for 1978 This deficithowever does not seem to be consistent with the overall health status of the population

520 The CEICINAI unit in the MOH also provides data on food consumption forpreschr olers caloric and protein intake were both more than adequate(over 100 of the daily requirement on average) fcr 1978-1982 in urban areas but the rural areas registeret a substantial caloric deficit of 9in 1978 This deficit probably accounted for low weightage ratios (1978undernourishment rates for CEN-CINAI preschoolers were higher-thanshyaverage) Protein consumption however was more than adequate over theperiod (over 100 of daily requirement) probably as a result of thegovernment milk program which may call into question the high caloric deficit By 1982 the deficit was covered and food consumption for rural preschoolers was adequate

521 A survey conducted by OCAF (MPE) in 1982 examined caloric consumption bymonthly income levels (Table E-11) 663 homes were classified as in extreme poverty (incomes lesi than 800 colones per month) poverty (incomesbetween 800-1999 colones per month) or non-poverty (incomes over 2000colones per month) The average per capita consumption of households in extreme poverty was 19635 calories or 873 of the daily requirementsHouseholds in poverty conditions consumed a per capita average of 2243calories just about the minimum daily requirement However onlyhouseholds earning at least 1500 colones per month averaged per capitacaloric consumption above the daily requirement

522 Milk was the most important item in the preschoolers diet (as much as 77and 74 of the total urban diet and 76 and 70 of the total rural dietfor 1978 and 1982 respectively in terms of grams consumed) For bothurban and rural areas rice vegetables and sugar constituted other

19 See Leonardo Mata and Luis Rosero National Health and SocialDevelopment in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action PAHO 1988

25

important dietary components in 1978 and 1982 Meat the second mostimportant dietary element for urban children in 1978 dropped to fifth in 1982 a probable sign of the economic crisis

Diet at the family level was quite similar to the child diet with milkthe most important item (between 30-44 of the diet for 1978-1982)followed by rice (between 15-25) sugar vegetables and meats Dietbetween the urban and rural areas did not seem significantly different except for the consumption of meats which was practically nonexistent inthe rural areas (less than 1) but represented as much as 11 of an urbanfamily diet Consumption of pulses rice and sugar was more important inthe rural areas Milk consumption at the family level decreasedsignificantly between 1978 and 1982 and seems to have been replaced by the increased intake of rice and vegetables

523 Data on the cost of the basic food basket in relation to minimum wages(Table E-9) show that between 1980-84 the daily cost of tLe food basketaveraged 939 of the daily minimum wage In 1982 the minimum wage of1114 colones per day fell 236 below the daily cost of the food basket(1377 colones) this period was thus one of peak difficulty for workers at this income level Government officials state that during this and theother crisis years to adjust to the increased cost of food thepopulations food consumption patterns shifted to a higher proportion ofrice and carbohydrates esp-cially in the urban rtas Therefore foodconsumption levels did not fall significantly but the composition of thediet changed After 1984 minirnum wages increased Co levels above the cost of the basic food basket

524 In an effort to expand health care to population groups with limited access to treatment facilities (eg urban marginal rural dispersed) the government adopted a universal care approach as its philosophicalframework perhaps best represented by the Rural Health Program (RHP)initiated in 1971 Through the RH7 and its sister Community Health Program(CHP) basic health care and social service provision became decentralizedand thereby available to the majority of the Costa Rican populationAfter the improvements fostered by these programs in the 19701s Costa Rica now boasts standards of social well-being in health education and basicsanitation services comparable to many industrialized nations

525 The RHP stressed the concept of community participation through healthcommittees as the basis for promoting development in rural dispersed andrural concentrated villages through an extensive network of rural health centers operated by the MOH these centers offered primary care throughbasic preventive curative and diagnostic techniques employed by personnelfamiliar with gaining access to remote areas (Access also improved asthe goverrment opened new roads throughout the country) The rural health posts carried out the dual functions of providing front line medical care and organizing health care delivery in the rural areas

The CHP sought to incorporate marginal urban populations into the health care system Based on the premise that this population originatedprimarily from rural areas the CHP was organized along the same lines asthe RHP and began operating in 1976 Coverage data for both programs are given in Table D-3

526 A reorganization of the Costa Rican health care delivery system in the1970s placed the administration of state hospitals and more advanced carefacilities under the Social Security Institute (SSI) To enable more CostaRicans to gain access to state hospital care a major effort toward theuniversalization of social security to cover all salaried workers wasundertaken with considerable success the proportion of the population

26

with coverage doubled over 1970-1979 from 390 to 78120 Since thenthe growth of the covered population has leveled off and efforts toward universalization continue today

The reorganization campaign also instituted a national system of planningregions and improved coordination between the MOH and SSI became a topadministrative priority The new approach stressed the more efficient useof available resources the distribution of those resources to a largershare of the population ad the improved application of technologies(eg polio and TB vaccines) brought into tha country since the 1940sThe government also allocated more resources to the public health sectorPer capita expenditures (in 1970 dollars) jumped from $37 to $65 over 1970shy1980 (a 757 inczase) _i7---iYridi as a D GDP increased from 56 to 74 over the sane period21

527 Another central feature of the approach involved a holistic emphasis onimproved health behaviors arid environmental conditions in the rural areasThus the rural health and school feeding and nutrition centers served asinformation-gathering and monitoring posts invaluable for data collectionand policy assessment Moreover efforts were made to expand potable waterand sanitation coverage vaccination coverage and health education Theseefforts achieved impressive results life expectancy climbed 11 from 654 years at birth in 1970 to 726 years in 1980 and the infant mortality ratedropped from 67 per thouiand in 1970 to 21 per thousand in 1980 a 687decrease 2 Although a look at these particular areas follows the readershould keep in mind that tie combined effects of government health programsbrought about the advances in Costa Rican health care achieved during the 1970s

528 A majir thrust of RHP primary care involves the control and eradicationof communicable diseases especially diarrheal and respiratory afflictionsthat have profound consequences on the nutritional intake and health of young children Although coverage data showing the gains achieved duringthe 1970s are not available statistics showing the declining prevalenceof preveritible diseases (Table F-1) attest to the results of theseimmunization efforts From 1970 to 1985 the prevalence of whooping coughdeclined by 93 and that of measles by over 99 (although the potentialfor the outbreak of measles epidemics remains) The economic difficultiesof the early 1980s had no observable effect on the progress made in combatting these afflictions

Rural outreach efforts led to the successful implementation in the late1970s of oral rehydration salts in the treatment of child diarrhealdiseases This technology gained increased acceptance among rural mothersto the point that standard treatment eventually becamne home-based rather than hospital-based

529 Recent data indicate good levels of overall coverage but with gaps amongchildren under 1 year of age Comparisons of 1986 data from the MOH (TableF-2) and UNICEF (Table F-3) yield an unclear picture as to the extent ofthis gap The MOH National Fertility and Health Survey shows that mostchildren receive polio DPT and measles vaccines between 1-4 years cf agelater than the recommended time Coverage at age 4 was high 968 for

20 Based on SSI figures reported in L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealth (the Case of Costa Rica) 1985 p 23

21 Ibid p 38

22 Ibid

27

polio (3 or more doses) 960 for DPT (3 or more doses) and 966 formeasles By contrast coverage for children under 1 year of age was low288 received complete doses of polio and DPT vaccine while only 115received measles vaccine 213 of this age group received no poliovaccine 231 received no DPT vaccine and 657 received no measles vaccine

The UNICEF data also reflects low rates of TB DPT polio and measles coverage for children under 1 year of age over 1980-1986 The DPT (568)and polio (548) coverage levels for 1986 however are substantiallyhigher than in the National Fertility and Health Survey possiblyreflecting different definitions of coverage(complete vs partial seriesof shots) in the UNICEF survey The UNICEF data also indicate that measlesvaccinations were acwrinistered only to children older than 1 year after1983 which way account for the low rate of coverage in the under-i-yearage group in the MOH survey

530 The 1986 National Fertility and Health Survey also provides data onimmunization coverage for children aged 0-4 years as per area of residencelevel of maternal education and level of family income (Table F-4) There was no significant difference in coverage rates between the ruralmetropolitan and urban areas surprisingly rural areas had levels of coverage slightly above the national average illustrating the success ofthe RHPs outreach efforts The main differences involved maternaleducation (lower coverage where the mother had not completed primaryschool) and the low family income group (not defined) for which poliocoverage in particular was drastically lower (17) compared to the medium (945) and high (932) groups

531 Despite the positive overall immunization situation in Costa Rica furtherefforts will be required to address nagging problem areas Measles remainsthe one preventible disease still associated with a relatively highmortality rate and still subject to periodic outbreaks Complete controlof diarrheal and respiratory diseases has yet to be achieved The lowerlevels of coverage associated with children under 1 year of age in 1986merit considerable concern among health officials Also the difficultyin covering hard-to-reach population sectors such as low-income ruralresidents will preclude the complete eradication of persistent diseaseswithout specific resource allocations toward this end

532 There is no more compelling testimony to the success of government health programs and their integrative approach than the gains achieved in CostaRican infant mortality which plummeted from a rate of 64 per thousand in1968-1969 to 21 per thousand in 1979-1980 with an impressive 120 annual average rate of decline over 1973-1980 (Table F-5) the period when theRHP and CHP had their peak effects Data depicting infant mortality trendsby canton confirm the success of program interventions In cantonsnationwide that received at least 50 program coverage the average annual decline in infant mortality was an impressive 160

It should be noted that these cantons had the highest infant mortalityrates before the programs were initiated and that the improvementstherefore reflect both the targeting of toresources disadvantagedpopulation sectors and the effectiveness of that targeting Thisconcentration of resources reflected policymakers concern with thehistorical vulnerability and consequeut high mortality (in relative terms)of the 1-4 year old population (Tab]a F-6) As late as 1960 for examplethe rate among this age group (736 per thousand) was only slightly belowthat of the 40-59 age group (G03) By 1980 the mortality rate for the1-4 year old cohort was well below that of the 40-59 cohort having by farthe highest rate of improvement over the 1970-1980 period

28

533 Despite the concentration of program efforts on disadvantaged andorremote population sectors the infant mortality gains were national in scope Data depicting trends across socioeconomic groups (Table F-7) showthat middle and lowcr classes in both the agricultural and non-agriculturalsectors experienced gains comparable to or above the national average(686) over 1971-1981 only marginal non-agricultural workers (528) were well below this rate

534 Similarly the 1986 study conducted by the Costa Rican DemographicAssociation (Table F-9) points to substantial variations in infantmortality rate reductions according to area of residence and maternal education Over the 1975-1979 period there was a 9 difference betweenthe San Jose rate and that of the rural areas and a 17 difference when the mother had 7 or more years of education versus less than 4 years By1981-1984 the rural rate was 8 lower than the San Jos6 rate while thedifference between the rate for mothers with less than 4 years of schoolingand that of mothers with 7 or mora years of schooling narrowed to 6 Although the small size of the survey samples limits the generalizabilityof these results (especially between-group comparisons for the 1981-1984data) the findings do illustrate the success enjoyed by Costa Rica in distributing health care improvements (and consequent infant mortalitygains) throughout the population

535 Two elements of the RHP breast feeding and prenatal care deserveparticular attention for their contribution to lowering infant mortalityAfter sharply declining in the early and mid-1970s breast feedingrecovered in both urban and rural areas over the 1978-1982 period This improvement was attributed to a program designed to minimize mother-infantseparation after delivery and to the dist)ribution of breast pumps tohospital maternity wards throughout the country enabling hospital staff to promote breast feeding 23 The improved nutritional intake associated with a breast-fed diet partly accounts for the iprovement in the rural infant mortality rate noted over the 1981-1984 period

Prenatal care coverage improved in rural areas as a result of theuniversalization of social security enhancing rural mothers access to state health care facilities Data from the National Fertility and Health Survey show that by 1986 91 of surveyed women had received at least someprenatal care including 883 of rural mothers and 750 of low income mothers (Table F-10) 75 of respondents reported at least 6 prenatalvisits but there were important variations in levels of care 153 of40-49 year old women 117 of rural women and 169 of the women who did not complete primary school reported having received no prenatal carewhile 442 of the youngest women (aged 15-19 years) received only partialcare Thus although overall coverage is good future resource targetingefforts must focus on integrating these subgroups into the health care system

536 An examination of infant mortality by groups of causes (Table F-lI FigureD-4) indicates that deaths caused by preventible diseases and malnutrition were drastically reduced over 1970-1984 These trends illustrate the success of government immunization food distribution and related health care programs These data also point to areas that will need future attention Despite the estimated24 75 of the decline in the infant death rate due to the control of infectious parasitic and diarrheal diseasesacute respiratory infections (such as TB) diarrheal diseases and ireasles are still a significant problem for the infant population

23 Mata and Rosero p 51

24 See the Mata and Rosero report Chapter 4

29

537 In spite of the economic difficulties experienced by Costa Rica during1980-1982 the infant mortality rate increased by only 50 to 189 perthousand in 1984 from its lowest level at 180 per thousand in 1981 Thusgovernment efforts were successful in dampening the impact of the crisis on the social welfare of the population Costa Rica still maintains the lowest infant mortality rate in Latin America

538 Data on basic services differ significantly from one source to another25 but there is a general indication that coverage for both potable water andsanitation is very high nationwide ICAA data show potable water26 coverage of 845 and 91 nationwide for 1980 and 1985 respectively a65 increase However coverage between urban and rural areas is unevenWhile coverage in the urban areas has been 100 since 1980 in the rural areas levels of 69 and 82 for 1980 and 1985 respectively were reported

The AIDWASH report (Table F-15) shows higher coverage for 1980 especiallyfor the rural areas (789) ana an average of 887 nationwide The repcrt estimates that between 1980 and 1986 an additional 231000 personsrepresenting a 247 increase in the number of persons served and a 41increase in the level of coverage were provided with potable water in therural areas The 1984 housing survey shows lower coverage than theAIDWASH survey for the same year (only 868 coverage nationwide versus896 estimated by WASH) Regions like Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limonhave the lowest coverage of in-house connections and the highest use ofwells and other undefined sources of water (which may ve7y well include non-potable water)

539 Overall coverage for sanitation 27 is higher than for potable water--87 for1980 and 95 for 1985 (ICAA)--and more evenly distributed among urban andrural areas The WASH data again shows higher rates of coverage nationwideand for the rural areas the 1984 housing survey shows a significantlylower coverage rate nationwide (only 88 versus 964 for WASH)

In any case there has been a significant increase of coverage nationwide(WASH estimates that 299000 additional persons received sanitation servicebetween 1980 and 1986) and the urban areas were 100 covered in 1985Areas like Alajuela Cartago Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon had in 1984the lowest coverage of septic tankp and the highest coverage of latrines

ICAA data shows 88 sanitation coverage for the rural areas in 1985 whilethe WASH data shows 944 in 1986 Despite discrepancies in (1) thequality of service delivered stemming from broad definitions of coverageand (2) the overall level of coverage depicted by the different surveysthe general consensus indicates very high levels of coverage especiallycompared to the rest of the region The relatively high coverage in therural areas reflects another element of the RHPs integrative approach and

25 Data from the Instituto Costarricense de Alcantarillados (ICAA) 1984 Housing Survey and AIDWASH Project Report 1No 209 all differ from one another

26 Coverage for potable water is defined as individual access to potable water either by private or public in-house connection collective fountain or well

27 Coverage is defined as access to sanitary service either through apublic or private septic tank or latrine whether connected or not to the main sewer system

30

played a significant role in the infant mortality improvements achieved during the 1970s

540 Government involvement in promoting and expanding education represents aCosta Rican philosophy and policy objective dating back to the mid-19th century shortly after independence was attained in 1821 A lawestablishing the basis for a unified education system was passed in 1849while free and compulsory primary school attendance for both sexes wasestablished in 1869 Efforts to broaden educational system coverage have continued since then highlighted in more recent times by the FundamentalLaw of Education (1957) and the National Plan of Educational Development(1973)28

Along with legislative mandates the goveriment devoted significantfinancial resources to educational developmen In the 1930-1950 periodfor example education expenditures accounted for over 15 of the national budget By 1978 the public education budget comprised 308 of the central government budget and equaled 59 of GDP (Table G-1) Per capitaexpenditures showed a similar acceleration reaching $6360 (in 1970 dollars) in 198029

541 These efforts have yielded more-than-adequate results The Costa Rican illiteracy rate for example is the lowest in the region (69 nationwide7 for men and 68 for women in 1986) Primary and secondary school enrollment rates are among the highest in the region The state moreoveris by far the largest educational provider Public schools captured 974of primary school enrollment and 94 of secondary school enrollment in 198130

542 The success in educating women has yielded benefits in two importantrespects (1) An easier incorporation of women into the health care delivery system (through health education school feeding programs etc)and greater willingness among women to employ modern health technologiesin caring for their children--both of these trends have been of particularimportance in rural areas and have contributed to the progress in infant mortality described above and (2) Improved employment prospects for womenespecially in higher-level better-paying jobs in the government and elsewhere in the formal sector

543 The government offers free education from preschool through secondaryschool Preschool generally consists of one year and is not mandatoryPrimary school comprises Grades 1-6 divided into two cycles of three yearseach Secondary school features two phases Cycle III (Grades 7-9)followed by Diversified Education Cycles I-III are compulsory thecompletion of Cycle III concludes general basic studies The Diversified cycle consists of academic artistic and technical tracks offering programsof varying years in length Higher education is offered at universities and parauniversities the latter resembling US community colleges

544 Preschool enrollment has steadily increased since the mid-1970s as has the number of schools with preschool programs (Tables G-3 and G-4)Coverage jumped from 275 in 1975 to 566 in 1986 and grew by 199 over1982-1986 while the number of preschools increased by a 64 average

28 Mata and Rosero pp 32-33

29 Ibid

30 IDB Costa Rica Informe Socioeconomico February 1987 p 91

31

annual rate over 1979-1984 Dropout rates for preschoolers are surprisingly low (less than 5)

545 Primary enrollment rates for Costa Rica very high throughout theare country Above 100 of the 6-11 years age cohort has been in the publicschool system since 1982 (Table G-3) although approximately 25 of thestudents enroll later than recommended Completion rates for primaryschool are also high at least 80 of enrolled children have finished since 1982 and promotion rates from one grade to another increase with age(The lowest at the first-grade level are still above 80 and the highest at the sixth-grade level are above 90)

Dropout rates for primary 3chool are very low for the daytime cycle (lessthan 5 and decreasing since 1982) and relatively high for the nighttimecycle (hno-e 25 and increasing since 1983) This disparity derives from the different socioeconomic groups that attend day and night classes (iepoor workers primarilr go to school at night) and the financial pressuresfacing lower-class workers

546 The picture for secondary enrollment is not as encouraging however and instead illustrates a persistent problem area for Costa Rican education Dropout rates for Grade 7 climbed from 125 in 1980 to 168 in 19(6 arise most probably due to the onset of the crisis (the rate jumped from137 in 1981 to 199 in 1982) Enrollment dropped every year from 1980 to 1935 before finally increasing by 33 in 1986 by which time less than half (485 of the Cycle III age cohort (12-14 years) was enrolled (daytime) Only about 25 of students who complete Cycle III continue their studies in the diversified cycle

These data indicate the difficulties the system faces in providing morethan a basic education to a large proportion of the population andor the inability of this sub-population to acquire more than a basic educationthereby limiting their job opportunities and economic prospects Althougheducation is free the opportunity ccist is high for poor agriculturalworker families who cannot afford not to have their children supplementingfamily income through available means

547 Higher edoication enrollment rates reflect the limitations of theachievements of the educational policy In 1975 157 of the 18-24 years age cohort was enrolled in higher education by 1986 only a slightimprovement was registered to 163 The small increases in enrollment since 1980 indicate that this situation has not changed to any greatextent but the absence of a decline during the years of crisis is apositive development Dropout rates have been relatively low during the daytime cycle (less than 10 and decreasing since 1982) but much higherduring the nighttime cycle (above 30 and increasing since 1982)

548 Despite the low national illiteracy rate regional figures point toproblems in educational access andor quality The Ministry of Education has detected seven regions where the rate is significantly higherCartago Heredia Alajuela Guanacaste Limon Puntarena6 and four provinces of San Jose Some districts register rates as high as 22 (Talamanca in Limon) 199 (Parrita in Puntarenas) and 194 (Los Chiles in Alajuela) these rural areas are associated with agricultural workerfamilies and other characteristically poor groups Similarly ii 1984three provinces (Guanacaste Puntarenas and Limon) had the highestproportion of population (5 years and older) with no education and the lowest proportion of university-educated citizens (Table G-9)

549 A few basic factors account for quality problems in the rural areas with an important such factor the high percentage of schools with only one teacher Although exact figures vary over 40 of Cycle I and II schools

32

fall into this category according to one estimate 864 of Cycle I and II schools had six teachers or less in 198531 Similarly manyadministrative regions in rural areas (eg Canas Liberia Guapiles) had studentteacher ratios in 1986 that were well above national averages for preschool Cycles III and Cycle IIIDiversified (Table G-10)

550 Other shortage problems in rural areas involve adequate facilitiestextbooks laboratories and other educational resources In light of decreasing public expenditures for education in recent years and the probable continuation of funding constraints prospects for addressingthese problems do not bode well for the near term Also there is growingconcern among government officials that a shrinking budget will not allow them to respond to growing demands for primary school services Enrollment for primary school has been estimated to grow at an average rate of 17for the next 15 years while higher education enrollment is projected to grow at a rate of 9 per year

551 Thus despite the impressive strides in education achieved in Costa Ricathere remains the need to address these problem areas and to take stepsto boost the enrollment of rural students in secondary andI highereducation One such step for example would be to match the schoolcalendar with the agricultural cycle in areas with high levels of child employment The system must also integrate the increasing migrant child population from Nicaragua and other countries so as to improve both educational coverage and quality

31 According to the IDB report 449 of Cycle I and II schools had one teacher in 1983 according to Guadamuz this figure is 415 for 1985 Guadamuz is the source for the 6-teachers school figure

33

6 CONCLUSION

61 During the 1970s the Costa Rican economy showed a remarkable ability fordistributing the benefits of growth The labor force grew at a fast 4annual rate while unemployment remained stable in the range of 5 to 6The absorption of a rapidly growing labor force was not achieved at thecost of a reduction in wages On the contrary real wages increasedsteadily throughout the decade From 1975 to 1977 the economic bonanzafrom improved terms of trade was translated into annual real wage increases over 15 which were not unwarranted by actual real output growth

62 Contrary to what has been suggested the increases in employment and thestability of unemployment were the consequences ofnot massive publichiring The Private Sector created three out of every four new jobs duringthe decade

Although increases in public employment were not insignificant they maybe explained at least partially by the rapid expansion of public provisionof health and educational services From the late 1960s major efforts were undertaken to improve services to the population and to extend outreach particularly in the rural areas Given the high populationgrowth even maintenance of coverage of the level of existing serviceswould have led to growth in public employment

63 This period of prosperity came to a halt in the late 1970s Due to thehigh degree of openness of the Costa Rican economy the reversal of the terms of trade made a substantial impact on economic growth Internalfactors such as the distributional and fiscal excesses made possible bywindfall income from high coffee prices and the initial attempts to counteract the recession by increasing domestic demand contributed to an intensification of the crisis

Faced with a severe deterioration of the external balance and a fall indomestic output the Costa Rican authorities adopted pragmatic adjustmentpolicies in late 1980 Over 1981-1982 public sector employment decreased and public wages were raised far less than the national average At the same time an emergency food and employment program targeted toward the poorest segments of the population was implemented

64 Dr-ing the years of crisis (1980-1982) the unemployment rate almost doubled However this increase in unemployment was not the result of andecrease in employment On the contrary the number of working CostaRicans increased throughout the period The increase in unemployment wasthe consequence of longer search periods between jobs and increasedparticipation rates as inactive household members entered the labor force to compensate for the loss in real income from the main wage earner

Given the severely reduced employment possibilities in the public sectorand the likely lower employment in the modern private sector most of theemployment creation during the years of crisis originated in the urbaninformal sector and in agriculture evidence of a temporary reversal of rural-urban migrations was found between 1981-1982

The Costa Rican economy proved itself very resilent and adaptable duringthe years of crisis It was able to keep on providing increased employmentdespite the contraction in the important modern private and public sectors

34

65 In a classic case of labor market adjustment real wages fell sharplyduring the period But it is likely that household income did not fallproportionately The increased participation rates during those yearssuggest that the number of income earners per households increased thus at least partially compensating for the fall in real individual wagesIf transfers and income-in-kind are included in total income for varioussocial groups it appears that the impact of the crisis was relatively less pronounced on the low income and rural population

Existing public programs and the Lapid implementation of emergencyassistance for the most at-risk groups then contributed to a severedeterioration of welfare for the poorest segments of the population Thelack of any significant worsening of health and nutrition indicators over the period appears to corroborate this hypothesis

66 Economic growth resumed in 1983 and untmployment rates fell to their average historical level As in the 1970s this improved economic outlook was translated into increased real wages

However the legacies of the crisis and of the macroeconomic adjustmentare obvious in the changed patterns of employment creation and wagestructure The public sector has reduced its role in employment Thedisparity between public and private sectors wages has been substantiallyreduced

67 Social concerns have been a long standing characteristic of Costa Ricansociety and public policy In the 1970s the expresion of these concerns was a distribution of the benefits of growth and a major effort to universalize access to health and educational services

The results are impressive As already seen public actions in the social area have contributed in cushioning the impact of the crisis on the mostexposed groups But the implementation of these programs was made possiblebecause of sustained economic growth during the last decade All further attempts at reaching marginal groups - - in particular the population inrural disperses areas shy - are likely to be increasingly expensiveTherefore the realization of of universalthe goal access to socialservices depends heavily on sustained future economic growth

35

ANNEX A

MACROECONOMIC DATA

36

TABLE A-I COSTA RICA GDP RKO VALUE AODED eVSECTORS Alll to of C1rr9n6 Colon 110 172 172 113 15I 1975 126 M1 1178 1179 1980 182 292 2383 2381C Produ or pr tc l) 196 186 121

5

Agrscollur 24613 24431 26026 19621 2522i 31278 12121 57626I5njfcturIng (23 6 63 63986 137221 131N5 238836122 23250 25-21 11033 2G 3423 28498 -TCh2 812-6 522235 516140721 50003 56576 63315 (7022Electricity 16 1001sect 198281 28262 36(G1276 171 10 514-83 52621 601402Conotrutlon 2 2051 303 101 5214 511 6026 88152174 3133 11131 226101258 5011 -12S e81 1134 41501 5351 62483 3153 62531123612 2633Corc 23723 15-20 26523 205s 22256 2335 2151 30050 371133 5[1072 678M 800642751 3 036 38322 5136 19123

pot52 120 520 59119 703564 9314 105003 21125435S 551 23184 31F02aF e 57 3713 186311 59680210 12 1270 1156 1136Finaniol Sercc 8024 2551$ 41873 6282 U46435 1575 1 1 9116A 105111330 14201 11104 24121 29531 2121334070 37810Other Ser ac 46858 57100 8083 108831 131133357 3M52 1202 115 1267 26M15 217211 30214706 9066 10181 13029 1535 18315 2282Public A6t2 rtaon pound132 35015 54013 71125 85108136 1180 119S6 25764 21083 26822 31020 11658 13013312226 52001 6288 76250 113235 i58031 20421 2575 315804 2752GOP 65245 70122 0617 18s522 23061 28016 206756 263301 301931 315841 114055 571021 1730521 12315 16301118 1152 2171520 28 8060

Not (2) includes ing

5o e Bnco Central de Cost Rico

coSrA 70812 m-

i1iPse AND SECTORL I82 OE

w

0l 8apoundpoundpounds a pound96a Cl 8 r32upound11r

f-r~afoc toa-i (1) [l IsctCo-st ral ton

Co arc npot

Flnancpound Seraos Other Serices ublic Roda gitrli

GDP

11- Groth RaI

170 117

13436 14056 10363 pound1203 pound064 pound2032213 263l6

pound11015 pound1513 217 21356 6623 7038 371 5014

5412 5144

55)5 51513

1 7

pound4828 22383 pound3163276

1pound480 302 7420 3135 6426

64380

173

15655 pound3641 pound16337

pound3543 356 9032 3335 1785

61343

1S4

15310 pound5384 pound5263610

pound340 4070 8756 35poundpound 461

7310

pound175

pound585 15871

pound5613847

pound2880 4322 1243 3446 7618

74725

117

pound5136 16712 pound 114647

4020 4573 1631 3560 7111

70840

pound977

pound628 pound130 pound9164828

pound652 3222

pound0132 3831 6311

85801

178

pound7362 20102

19145108

1226 5722

pound0677 3150 8821

11251

171

pound148 21029 20126014

pound140 6430 1355 4224 13Z

957r58

1980

17361 21196

22416027

pound403 6764

pound2652 4155 166

96470

pound3jul 1982

1246 17390 2101 11686 2424 Z52447115 224

pound5563 1742 67pound (663

11664 1pound264 4010 305 9043 9556

11 16 8I426

pound183

10013 pound02 30363365

1132 76 3

pound2320 3163 1405

t -

9 1

1 )

pound99) 3 210-13 52pound34111

1 036 pound1522 902 q546

9618

85 186

pound084 pound591 214q2 22171 2531 3084332 4521

11526 pounde11 71 7519

pound2844 pound33G6 4116 4313 1531 969

97816 103375

poundi87

1112 2434

326347211

pound9416 6014 14205

40 1835

1110

Rrcupound EaouactrInq (pound3 Cicrac1t

9

-45Fanwaa S

0 r- Seroe ojPG6pound air2

460 62

pound328 C5msrux IIe1-2Z

663

47pound32pound

GOP66

542 pound058 342

77f133226pound12a

57pound41182pound

820

S6a 102pound 12

66pound160pound821

4756pound 1

7pound

-27so pound278 331

-07141210pound

53pound020

55

3005 32pound 23Z 5X

-4262S6

-21pound32k

22

59pound 385

91053242pound

33pound38

5

2 pound1278 61C 0pound5

pound71212Oo523

76pound50

8

66 32 5458X3 35

422pound17854

32pound502

63pound

05Z 27 518113pound

41pound22426

459x

4192

-05z 03z

-220

-30S2Z26x

0856z

0

51z -055 76a e-217pound

-pound0ix-0701

-3OX288

3

-5 -pound110

42pound -3112

-227pound-07097

-360 - 21

100 1er

202 q70

3225-210

20 - 60

2

31pound348 32pound

2x~2360

121262240

00 15x

4310

-051 20pound 201FEl- 4156pound

46pound3pound711

81 35pound

pound71

422 72pound 62fiI11 27pound

5745042pound

280 3oz

S1

-25 553 O

41

7i66263pound

2O0 25z

39Z

hal (1) shy u$d t

Sa-u 9a-aca Cntrl da Coata Re

r181E 11-3

mjf RICA S[t AL88DIL2O8R2

B 23662210 21710 2972 1912 113 1174 2155 2976 1977 108 19 1980 198 1 982 1983 1 8R~cuIha-ure 2094 I27 1001 1251 2631 255Prfactw (1 3538 31550 6 1 426 20425 3 21 15 42 2251 2425 642 I136 251 32 17310 2971 26646 210251-032 2062 272 302 3635124 118 1341 2156 2412 2872 522 4 2Coteuctl - 2872 2916 120 5874 8963 2222121 8 1224 26303 26102502 2Z1I 24026Comerce 2103 2 59 2-58 2832 356 752952236 12 1 3636 428 62r 53502323 2526 2048 2181 2133 3206 1 11258 13963 26050 1741 1510frnport 3454 3933 476220 2 47 674 15373 I79752217 2221 2432 2b25 2018 2130 2112 221 zoo5 2603 26021 30282578 3803 6735 290 113 23298 24322 o82Ff c2 S1 lc 220 1218

2216 221 1 2423 1622 22524 123 3191 3330 1522 4965ldtI1c 8dtaii2r8 224 2321 248 6872 898 20541 130412262 2365 2785 2236 2347 28413 222421553 2164 2113 26 3298 376 441527076 37 1054 56T3 9522 23 214712 5576 6535 7323 216 27280 331774 211 26800 219 0 26861 32592 37711

62 117I 1192 2253 1421 2785 2719 2622 3366 3 9 3622 122 GO5( 11153 14380 1080 21622 24023 2k3018 Ar~uhlndfctgsa 123 62 522I82 602 307210 246 325x 272482 2422 2232 138 03462 23 I58a 42892 902 2Db 697520 I069907I15 4002 27521242 2 618 822CI-trici 1 242 5 222 252 428 2402 208 02 3 3080 990 55 892 48 27 8 532Conru82 512 222 1612Com C 261 11 2Z372 2032 2500485 22 222462 352 248 192 2362 17x 463 4922212 2390 2242 423 2278 234 240x 1o I682rnpo 6 2702 226 140t 512172 2462X

natr wc2lf-c -07172 152 2482 214 132 20 482euro 072 2172 4752 2722 3192Z O205o 2782 852 2222

312 265Z 382 2882 2578 1442 642 52 42 208 234 8 08 7 372 282 4921 32

OIwr-Su 182 60 I272 203 2532Phli Rb12i1itrt 19Z 1262 5IX 242z 2722 285z42 12352 231 29l 59O 3228 2831 226 2122282 240a 200 23221822 2632 2672 292 525 1 8 2 2 9 2232 2602 GO I 22 1332 25 260 216 26 9 120 288 51 8422 28 27 269 22 9

Not (2) AcIdnle -- 9

2C 11-o CtraI d Cot Rc

TABLE A-1 COSTA RICA STRUCTUREO GOP A - Str GOP 1170 173 1112 173 1974 1575 170 1577 1-amp 3 q 14095 016 1962 I3j1H3 1

Arzu3 t 11 33I1l

232 2321 212X 232X Z32 232 202 103 o1t0 I02 26022tr2xcttosg 232 2320 193 9 20 13212 2320 232 222Z 205 1) re o213 2 220 Is22 Z10euro 2212Coumtrctt1o 21 21 21iU 2121 Z I0X5 230 2 11Xctrt 22 113 53 53I 323 1 2 2 223x 2z0L3Z3 2I 25X 5l0 l 2IX310Z 04T 23Z 2602 21X0 5 7 3 tcm 3237 41l 3 ON 4 3 30x44 3 OCoerc 4472x l72z 172X 272 372 372 376 13ron~por t 6 6T 6 381 I6 368 8 6 58 205c I tr 12 3Z 7X amp2m 3 i5770 156 203 10X 731143 19q 12 2 x8 11 1ervIO 41 12 753 q2 3 2715 3622ftueg S324 IST It321Z 22q 24t 223A 1 22143 fi t 77Z 13x 123 124 135 13PL0b Aieurogr3 121 23 2303 303x 203 2330103 163z 103 30IX 43 4 3 430 4416Z 440 42417 1t I300 304 300 l 42051 46GDP 1Fi 14 42O0 20000 O 0 OO 11Oz 13001 I00 o000 0O O 0 0 10(100 0I 3O00z 100 0t I W 0 31 0 I u n (it 31o 1(0 W

8 - o ft o GOP Aato2 h I) 125 2040 160 I33 3130 Z03 20 10 5 10 23 5 a20 3 1ctrct 13X 180 I8X 303 30 2It 20 20Ccntructo 43 16 17 2X 25 23 38X482T 3 5 3 10353 52 0euro 52 55 Z 2z

1Co 230 232 203 201i 2 I 3 5 523 21 3qz 3 X 32eC 1X285 1X 23 2xfrehpor 3 121 451 45 4 45

31 Z 0Z 203X 36 21 17 34x 2 7 45t 43 42 42 42 45 40 41 31 10 3F1nnco 3e 331 4 42 430 45Srs 1230Other Sro 33 15 201 315 237 332513 53 52 233 01 II2302 18 40 l 307442 42 43 2 4 40 3 424 04 8 417 P1061t Adtnistrt o 100 115x 12q I23 221 324 330 2x1 340 150 152 334Z 230 322 3200 3xSlIP 3 12 333I3OO 20000 200O I33M0 30OOx oooz I0OO I00 01O Q 00Oz ioooz 100 O0ox I0O I000 200 1 300 100t

Note (3) Iludog n g

Soc 6c- Control d Coot R-

TROL[ A1-5

COSTA RICA OF By lXPtNOITfuES IO- l6e

19amp1I2 1-01 17 115 11 l1ps I116 li7s W 3 1101 382I 13 j4qq 39859 t|18f(p)

Co80t

0

Poa

iPub 6o utt

Gr DOotic Ep-otPtl

41181

011

6440 11223

5O01

lA45

11150

7324 13121

63s1

51055

1380

34086

6531

53133

15026

0387 41M5

169800

5611l

47346

1015 16116

73157

57985

403r5

Sc611110 15 2P

732312

60750

50310

10360 31265

00015

8521

57262

i36 23650

923171

SZ13

65533

11640 23552

9015

71111

63333

12501 2531

10115

r5111

13g0

1241 2153 3

10261

14105

5705

3 018 17315

02-0

LI23I

53580

11711 121031

Li 02

65t I

54968

1311 1(0

02f

r)t1

58436

1103 16b8

011423

7A1 3

029

11164 a)30

3223

7116

1814

12302 23IA6

3001

7J1

64

312F 2250

30213

Fotl 0-d76613 302Z66 1-30L

03715

23916 25864 0133911-8 462

77 27111 1004(9 IDO46

20661 30814

3M0 32316

31091 33851

35200 137015

33613 1363104

31135 23

) 3 345

3101 172008

38415 Y4i5 I rob6

39063

439165

460216

10111 31 amp7O34 8t1

Public 1001 320

410 1

4Ix 6

52 610

224 37

42x 70

136x 00

I0x 50

OO0 77

-181 3t 51

-054 -56

19 -253

33 -29 39 3 282 30

Epoto

1te1 D0nd

6 nt391 605

030

6-

520

37IX

1O

5 56Z

1 tx

pound2x

06x 63

73z

66

-O3

-20

-054

25X 13

510q

11Z

220si 152

022

3MIR

- 01AX 73

117

18O

134 31Z

33

32

70 08

-1

-052

3 7 - -360Z

3I

-93z

255Z -438

55z

1330 814

13

b5

40

75

4332

11

1

16

00

3 2

3130I

16

06

530

2624

2

j6

6

SoBrc ono Ct 1

CAB LE R-F COSTA RICA NATIONAL DISPOSABLE INC(O

1170 1971 1172 1173 197 1975 19IS 1977 178 197M IqO 1591 2592 11s 1981 116 1906

A -Mllton or Crret ColonI

9qa Slofg 30575 341237 312 45918 5917 76131 16 03 23803 11339 371412 201951 217841 381225 561321 723U0 123732 1120112

Labor In fron At-od 101 85 16 118 213 223 223 263 305 65 323 731 991 3361 3975 5049 0147

Profit 23263 24138 2914 38315 18145 61011 73670 9 679 1061M1 3 8253 913194 510(10 56906 73973 151 914511375 I3ofs 6

Propont Int4

d -19 -1123 -2641 -2119 -3302 -5464 -6213 -6529 -019 -122831 -20199 465079 -i lrs9 -140099 -112016 -1162 157177

Iodtrat o 750r 9011 9111 172139 1001 21531 2791 31716 40961 A130 4 52153 M5026 123330 15613 25117 29612 3627o

L S-ldIo 255 313 360 169 291 360 1133 650 920 2151 3930 7202 10395 9361 3265 11123 26312

Ht Currant trs bull fro Atrood 231 302 323 516 001 921 3333 1323 1372 1012 1314 57 12311 9726 135122 27376 35595

Diapooblo Itlol I-So 60429 61227 7465 - 12224 151733 310617 24115 2961 315651 373717 1amp5309 79r32 1123031 1159575 101054 2301107 I - 9111for

Co parcoat 7 W1I)

Mo 506 31 79 3232 4129 49x 470 5059 19Z 5315Z 5130 510 53X 494z 502 339 530T 4979

Protll 9U 3779 3102 1019 3160 594x 396x 904 361x 3609x 3 7 70 56IX 1460i i179 12 416X

C - MII-o of Con-ot-t Co1

ConsJ Price Ind (1) 52 344 59 o o 1000 335 107- 1 3 1218 14 2020 381 54391 5703 656j 7332 Oispossble Notiol IItco- I3 121926 131723 no n 151735 394219 226913 213801 252328 25531 10251 29U301512213 n5MG 27151 3335Pcot chon 63 n1 1 232z 74 3 02 2 -2162 x IG 340 23x

Noga S11scI 58000 17191 68913 05 00 76131 1250 2C372 25159 337105 135046 322615 11252 110792 12 875 7 140711 352971967 132 no 00 2005 270 1172 95 32 -2290 3x-21 23260 62o 960

gqon -nd Si-l (23 365627 172669 29337 no a 273123 207755 233622 21966 2f56c 254617 221891 14151 395210 221713 239167430 41 05 n 60 11 7 652z -46 -1177 -22Z 2269 n aa 370

C3s an orotod ortthtitlc Lmot l Th Cr2 I Sq g wotchiog too ffaro t o

Tb P I colcjltod oly bckokt of lo sod i4tn ropraantila aourr p-rchao In Iti Son - ttroplito ArSoosuwa tI (73 |I act rap soato)tlao a th lacroxal i Iho coat ofOsaingl for 32 res r daflatd -aluo sho-ld o3~tho b Cvdorod lndicotla 07 S d

(2) thorw1otootea

S-c- lO Control do Cot Rico

TABLE A-7COS RICA RRICE INDEX

CPI (1) CPI (2) Inflation 970 1126 1971 1161 1972 1214 1973 nd 1974 nd 1975 2136 10001976 1035 3501977 1079 4251978 1143 5931979 1248 9191980 1474 18111981 2020 37041982 3841 90151983 5094 32621984 5703 11961985 6561 15041986 7332 11751987 8574 1694

AND FXCNGE RATE

R-- e Depreciation 6623 6910 -43 7330 -61 7610 -38 8284 -89 8570 -35 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 8570 00 9240 -78 21180 -1292 39770 -878 41560 -45 44400 -68 50460 -136 56050 -111 63000 -124

(1)Consumer price index for low and medium incareconsumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area(2) CPI for low and medium axme

Source

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

consumers of San Jose Metropolitan Area base 1975=100

Direotion General de Estadisticas y Censos

TABIE A-8 COSA RICA TEEM OF TRADE

PRICE INDICES TS OF TRADE EXPORTS IMPORTS 1966=100 1975=100

967 994 973 1224906 1036 875 1100945 1101 858 10801065 1219 874 10991277 1671 764 9611452 1827 795 10001642 1737 945 11892098 1829 1147 14431958 1936 1011 12722052 2221 924 11622316 2521 919 11562119 2692 787 9902072 2617 792 9962030 2512 808 10172155 2475 871 10952198 2460 893 1124

SOURCE BANO CI2RL DE 0IST RICA

43

CTA RICA LAND TABLE A-9DISTR IBrION 1973 AND 1984

Total o Land

vith rand Halt02 02 to lt05 05 to lt1 Haltl 1 to lt2 2 to lt3 3 to lt4 4 to lt5 5 to lt10

10 to lt20 20 to lt50 50 to lt100

100 to lt200 200 to lt500 500 to lt1000 1000 and u 1000 to lt2500 2500 and up

1973 Number

81562 4564

76998 4518 3382 6513

14413 7522 6414 3328 3566 9095 8777

12436 5801 2922 1929 495 300 220 80

Area

3122457 0

1000 3122455 554

1159 4472

187 6185 98 10241 83 15391 43 11380 46 15809

118 64846 114 122781 162 387097 75 396536 38 391733 25 577198 06 338580 04 784678

320924 463754

ayeragesize

1000 406

02 04 03 14 05 24 04 34 05 44 21 7]39 140

124 311 127 684 125 1341 185 2992 108 6840 251 26156

1984 Number

101938

5396 96542

16724 10811 8573 4637 4552 12530 12790 13407 6469 3216 2111 488 234

Area 3070340

0 1000 3070337

173 7344 112 14132 89 20089 48 15573 47 19916 130 88263 132 172960 139 412026 67 443493 33 431518 22 618709 05 330062 02 496252

ayeragesize

1000 318

02 04 05 13 07 23 05 34 06 44 29 70 56 135 134 307 144 686 141 1342 202 2931 108 6764 162 21207

Source Agricultural Census 1973 and 1984

RICAE A-10 COSTA RICA

COSTA RICA1973 1984

LAND DISTRIBYTION Number

81562 101938

BY REGIONS 1973 Area

Ha 10003122454 1000T 3070337

AND 1974

1000 1000

Averape Size 383 301

SAN JOSE1973 1984

19009 20640

233 202

321691 280967

103 92

16S 136

AIAJUEIA1973 1984

19510 26817

239 263

684185 741434

219 241

351 276

CARD= 1973 1984 7734

9600 95 94

147673 154355

47 50

191 161

HEREDIA1973 1984

4437 5161

54 51

135127 149974

43 49

305 291

GUANACASTE 1973 1984

11835 12325

145 121

908674 772030

291 251

768 626

PUNTARENAS 1973 1984

13747 18079

169 177

680574 686262

218 224

495 380

1973 1984

5290 9316

65 91

244530 285315

78 93

462 306

Source Agrarian Census 1973 and 1984

45

AMEX B

POPULATION

46

TABLE B-i

COSTA RICA TOTAL POPULATION BY GENDER AND ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH RATE 1970 -1987

POPULATION (o00)

GROWTH RATE YEAR TOTAL MALE FEMALE PER 1000

1970 17208 8729 8578

1971 17778 8966 8812 272

1972 18228 9192 9036 253

1973 18681 9420 9261 249

1974 19159 9660 9499 256

1975 19682 9924 9758 273

1976 20258 10216 10042 293

1977 20871 10527 10344 303

1978 21512 10653 10659 207

1979 22173 11189 10984 307

1980 22845 11530 11315 303

1981 23531 11879 11652 300

1982 24238 12239 11999 300

1983 24960 12606 12354 298

1984 25689 12977 12712 292

1985 26421 13349 13072 288

1986 27158 13723 13435 279

1987 27906 14103 13803 275

SOURCE MISSION ESTIMATES BASED ON CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950-2025 SAN JOSE 1988

47

TABLE B-2

COSTA RICA POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985 --------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985 --------------------------------------------

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 1730780 1968214 2284497 2642072

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

284713 274762 237550 189720 147632 114300 95663 84013 71244 58576 48080 38696 30142 23270 14961 9728 7730

274899 281755 273830 236599 188561 146540 113297 94568 82741 69776 56869 46008 36100 26911 19361 11230 9169

325241 275957 285323 277578 239423 190557 147685 113960 94817 82586 19093 15634 4 -988 251 23195 1n119 11090

364424 327464 280451 289994 281136 241897 192020 148602 114491 94953 82057 67860 53530 40980 29163 18523 14527

MALE

TOTAL 872937 992437 1153024 1334849

0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

144875 139655 120644 96205 74754 57746 48018 42102 35678 29280 23941 19153 14774 11244 7007 4452 3409

139998 143340 139113 120037 95441 74023 57098 47355 41355 34814 28274 22719 17635 12933 9128 5128 4046

165856 140575 145269 141127 121467 96357 74486 57343 47417 41187 34376 27503 21515 15967 10861 6872 4846

186101 167048 143022 147811 142949 122610 96977 74857 57549 47416 40854 33617 26246 19712 13594 8255 6231

FEMALE

TOTAL 856844 975777 1131468 1307224 0-4 5-9

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80 +

139838 135107 116906 92515 72877 56554 47645 41911 35566 29296 24139 1954315367 12029 7954 5276 4321

134902 138416 134716 116562 93119 72517 56199 47213 41386 34962 28594 2329018465 13978 10233 6102 5123

159385 135381 140054 136451 117955 94200 73199 56617 47399 41398 34717 2813022473 17284 12334 b247 6244

178323 160416 137429 142183 138188 119287 95043 73745 56942 47537 41202 3424427284 21268 15569 10268 8296

48

-------------- ---------------------------------------------

TABLE B-3a

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

---------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

BOTH SEXES

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 iO800

0-4 1645 1397 1424 13795-9 1588 1432 1208 123910-14 1373 1391 124915-19 10611096 1202 1215 109820-24 853 958 1048 106425-29 660 745 834 91630-34 553 576 46 72735-39 485 480 49940-44 562412 420 415 43345-49 338 355 362 35950-54 278 289 302 iI55-59 224 234 244 25760-64 174 183 19365-69 203134 137 146 15570-74 086 098 102 11075-79 U56 057 066 07080 + 145 047 049 055

0-14 4606 4220 3881 367915-64 5073 5442 5758 593065 + 321 339 363 390 MEDIAN AGE 1680 1825 1961 2140

SO CE CELADEIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAET22ACTONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025ThBLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

49

TABLE B-3b

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATON BY GENDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

------------------------------------------------------------------

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1900 1985 -------------------------------------

MALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1660 1411 1436 1394

5-9 1600 1444 1219 1251 10-14 1382 1402 1260 1071 15-19 1102 1210 1224 1107 20-24 856 962 1053 1071 25-29 662 76 836 919 30-34 550 575 646 727 35-39 482 477 497 561 40-44 409 417 411 431 45-49 335 351 357 355 50-54 274 285 298 306 55-59 219 229 239 252 60-64 169 178 187 197 65-69 229 130 138 148 70-74 080 092 094 102 75-79 051 052 060 062 80 + 039 041 042 047

0-14 4642 4257 3917 3716 15-64 5058 5430 5748 5926 65 + 299 315 334 359

MEDIAN AGE 1663 1807 1942 2082

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA

ESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACIO 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

TABLE B-3c

COSTA RICA RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY GZNDER AND AGE GROUPS 1970 - 1985

AGE GROUPS 1970 1975 1980 1985

FEMALE

TOTAL 10000 10000 10000 10000

0-4 1630 1383 1409 1334 5-9 1575 1419 1197 1227

10-14 1363 1381 1238 1051 15-19 1090 1195 1206 1088 20-24 850 954 1042 1057 25-29 656 743 833 913 30-34 555 576 647 727 35-39 489 484 500 564 40-44 415 424 419 436 45-49 342 350 366 364 50-54 2j1 293 307 315 55-59 228 239 249 262 60-64 179 189 199 209 65-69 140 143 153 163 70-74 093 105 109 119 75-79 062 063 073 079 80 + 050 053 055 063

0-14 4568 4183 3844 3642 15-64 5088 5455 5768 5935 65 + 345 364 390 424

KEDIAN AGE 1698 1843 1980 2128

SOURCE CELADENIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICA ESTIMACIONES I PROYECCIONEB DE POBLACIOM 1950 - 2025 TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1984

50

------- ---------- - --- -- --------- --- --- ------- --

--------------------- ------- -------------------

-------

------------ ------------------------------- ----- ---------

TABLE B-4

COSTA RICA ESTIMATED DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS 1970 - 1985

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

AFERTILITY CRUDE BIRTH RATE (a)(Z) 315 3169 3019GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE 434 389 SROSS REPRODUCTION RATE 35

212 19 171

BMORTALITY f GROSS DEATH RATE (b)(t) 583 496 416 LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH - TOTAL

6808 708 7353- MALE 6605 6863 7133- FEMALE 7022 7308 7585

CNATURAL GROWTHNATURAL GROWTH RATE Ic=a-bJ (Z) 2567 2673 2603 NET REPRODUCTION RATE 195 179 165

DMIGRATION NET MIGRATION RATE (d)(1) 0 298 298

EPOPULATION GROWTHf POPULATION GROWTH RATE [e=(a-b)-d] (Z) 2567 2375 2305

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

51

- --- - - - - - - ---- - - -- -

----

---------------------------------------

-----

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------

TABLE B-5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

COSTA RICA LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH BY GENDER 1950

- -- - - - - - - - - shy

- 1985

YEAR --------------MALE -

AVERAGE FEMALE AVERAGEGAINS SEXGAINS DIFFERENTIAL

195000 5465 722 5705 778 24196300 2406187 6483

296439197300 5666626

580 7049 423614 4219B400 7206

7663 457

FIVE YEAR PERIOD ESTIMATES 1950-1955 5604 5855 251

278

1955-1960

1960-1965

1965-1970

5082

6159

6391

277

232

214

6154

6453

6746

299

299

293

276

272

294

355

1970-1975 6605 258 7022 417

1975-1980 6863 270 7308

286

277 445

1980-1985 7133 7585

452

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC ------------------COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLE la SAN JOSE 1988

52

----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

------------

TABLE B-6

COSTA RICA POPULATION GROWTH 1970 - 1985 (THOUSANDS OF PERSONS PER YEAR)

1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

ABIRTHS (a)

BDEATHS (b) se

11

67

11

74

10 CNATURAL GROWTH (c=(a-b)]

47 56 64 DHIGRATION (d)

06 EPOPULATION GROWTH [e=(a-b)-d]

47 62 71

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDREC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECIONES DE POBLACION 1950 shy 2025TABLES 4 AND 11 SAN JOSE 1988

53

---------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

TABLE 7 TABLE B-7

COSTA RICA FERTILITY RATES 1970 - 1985

PERIOD AGE GROUPS 1970-1975 1975-1980 1980-1985

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

GLOBAL FERTILITY RATE

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

TOTAL

01058

02226

01995

01561

01177

00555

00098

43400

01220

02567

02301

01800

01358

00640

00113

10000

FERTILITY RATES

01102 00983

02154 01941

01884 01748

01328 01260

00883 00759

00360 00275

00062 00037

38900

FERTILITY STRUCTURE

01418 01404

02771 02772

02424 02496

01708 01799

01136 01084

00463 00393

00080 00053

10000 10000

SOURCE CELADEMIDEPLANDGEC COSTA RICAESTIMACIONES Y PROYECCIONES DE POBLACION 1950 - 2025TABLES 6 AND 13 SAN JOSE 1988

54

ANNEX C

EmPWOYMENT AND WAGE INCOME

55

TRABLE C-i COSTA RICA LABOR FORCE

R- TOTAL POPULRriomCa) rotae Population

less then 12 yrsLabor ForceE-ployodUneployed

Urban Population less than 12 yrs Labor Force

Eployed Una~poyed

Rural Population

less than 12 yrs Labor forceE~ployedUnemployed

(thousand)

1976 July

20185

656168109

8608

3012 2808 201

115

35653360205

1977 July

(a)

20656

6816533314

8908

3203 3036 16

11717

36113196118

Z978 July

CA)

21150

71968032

9189

3397 3208 189

11961

38003663137

1979 July

(a)

21659

1317071363

9187 3522 3323 199

12172

3912 3119163

1980 July

(a)

22178

6698 7703724456

1981 July

(a)

22706

68 79587262696

3881 3530 351

12061

1077 3733311

1982 July

(a)

23213

6877 83837599786

1983 July

(a)

23786

6955 8138767662

1981 1985 July July

(b) (a)

21168 21892 7205 7111 8042 88157469 8267573 608

2081512642 2922 3725

26

1316

3 4003313

M186 July

(a)

2156 7257

91101542567

Source (a) National Household Survey July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

rABLE C-2OSrR RICR EMPLOYMEnr RRrES

J

Y-nt Rate

Global()Hal Female Urn

ale Female

PeRural

Male Fo1al

ross Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

fined Participation Rate Global Urban Rural

p c i fi c P a r t i c i p a t i o n R a t e s a- total specific populationealesneFemales b- population over 12HalosFeales

(thousand)1976 July

622 nA na

682 na

MA

581nne

na 3262 3502 3082

S na

n

nA

nAne

1977 July

ane)p

462 ne MA

52Z na

e

I12nSne

M

3312 3602 310z

MA nA

n

n nA na nenA

1978 July

45 na na

562 na MA

362nAne

na

3402 3702 3182

MA nA

n

nA nseaMA MAnA

1979 July

392 76z

57 nA na

422nane

a

3132 3712 3212

ne na

n

5112 1762

nAnA

1980 July

59z 53Z

92Oz

59 532 22

592532882

8Z

317z 362X 3312

1982 3622

3312

5212 1722 759Z 2112

1981 July

87 82

10

902 892 912

81 7621162

IAX

35Ox 3652 3382

5002 3652

3382

511 186Z 7162 2612

1982 July

Ca)

9-x 86

111

105 107k 1002

6323 70231

1342

361 3682 3512

5122 368k

35Ix

3 5 1 Z

531 189 7672 2652

1983 July

(a)

902

88 SAX

912 362 892

82209

109z

3552 3672 311Z

5012 3672

32173

5312 180Z1 7582 2512

1981 July

(b)

12 75Z 60Z

o 782 512

722 56

56t

333k 3162 322z

1712 17623 z

5152

7162 2082

72

1985 July

69 652

2c 67k 83x

612 712

35r 371 31-3x

5002 506r

91

- 1 k

532-195k 7562 25x2

1986 July

(a)

) 62

60Z 69x

68k 682 682

572 722

71Z

3582 3652 351z

5022 1972

182 8 8 Z

533t 186z 75Zx

Source (a) National Household Surveys July of each year(b) Population Census July 1981

TABLE C-3 COSTA RICA SEASONAL LABOR FORCE VARIATIONS

(thousand)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Change Change Change Change Change Change Change Change A- NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJuly NovJulg NovJuly NovJuly NovJulurOTAL POPULArION

Total Populatiorn 07 08 08 08 08 08 0e O8Labor Force 65 a3 100 55 54 113 55 40Employed 104 96p 101 76 592 114 88 78Unemployed -5182 29 73 -353x -26 103 -263 -341p

Urban Population 10 10 11 251P 12 12 12 11Labor Force q0 36 57 414 46 91 39 2PEmployed 71 39 56 1i6 36 72 58Unemployed -387 -2A 852 07 205 288 58

-118 -268P

Rural Population 04 06 062 -292 04 04 04 04Labor force 86 124 138e 66 S1 135 69 52Employed 131 126 1412 89 797 153 115 97Unemployed -649 81 66r -160 -Z26P -52X -4327 -422

Source Direccion General de Estadistica y Cenros Household Surveys July and NoveMber

D

TABLE C-iCOSTA RICA SALARIED EMPLOYMENT PER ECONOMIC SECTORS

1976 1977 1978 1979

A - EflployMent (000)

Agriculture 1189 1218 1217 1162Manufacturing 733 831 825 895Construction 327 357 112 456Public Utilities 287 303 314 328Commerce 677 731 777 788Private Services 1228 1271 1137 1506Unspecified 28 07 10 11

Total 1171 1722 5023 5150

B - Annual Changes Agriculture

21 -01p -152Manufacturing 1212 -07 85Construction 92p 1512 107pPublic Utilities 562 135p -17Comnerce 802 63 11pPrivate Services 372 128 18kUn ci fi ed -750p 129p 1002

Total 551 612 252

1980

1233 959 465 398 838 1553

I$

5161

61 72P 20p

213p 632 31 1132

602

1981

1280 881 395 311 821 1691 12

5156

38 -81

-151p -113p -172 912

18252

-9

1982

1196 895 316 323 826 1736 51

5673

169 16z

-1212 -53p 02p 25k 212

0 2

1983

1315 983 313 351 892 1781 36

5675

-121P 98

-95 96P 802 262

-291

0

1985

1373 1000 322 127 1001 1952 51

6129

11 17p 29x

206x 126 96 17

0

1586

1126 1125 108 398

1058 1930 73

6119

392 125 267p -682 512

-112 131 432

C - Structure

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Public Utilities Conmerce Private Serices Unspecified

Total

2662 1652 732 612 1512 274 06

10OO2

258 176p 76 612

1552 2702 01

10002

212 161p 82P 68 1552 286k 022

10002

226 1712 89 612 153 292p 03

1000

2262 1762 85p 732

153p 281 03

10002

2352 1612 72 632 151 3102 08e

1000y

2b1 158 61v 572 116 306 09p

10002

232p 1732 55 622 157 3112 06

10002

2212 163 53 70

1612 318 08Z

1000

2222 175 612 622 165 301 112

1O0O

Source DGEC Household Surveys July of every year

TABLE C-5 COSTA RICA EMPLOYED WORKERS PER INSTITUTIOHRL SECTORS

O

1976

Labor Force 6577

Unemployed 109

Employed Labor Force 6168

Total Salaried Employees 1171

Public Sector 1025

Central Government 182Autononous Institutions 513

Private Sector 3419

Contribution to EMployment Creation a- Salaried

Public Sector

Central GovernMent Autononous Institutions

Private Sector

b- Unsalaried Employed Labor

rotdl

3r7

6817

311

6533

l122

1117

511606

3575

679p

331

162P 173

315

321

1000p

1978

7197

327

687

5023

1278

561711

3739

875

389

682 3202

187k

125p

1000Z

1979

7131

363

7071

515

130

557713

3813

627p

109

-35P 1112

5172

373

lO0O

1980

703

156

7217

5161

1416

623793

1039

1773p

659

375 281

11112

-773P

1000

1981

7958

696

7262

5156

11417

632785

1039

67

672

6002 -533

0

933V

10002

1982

8385

786

7599

5673

1313

621722

1306

573

-2202

-33P -187p

7922

1272

1000

1983

8138

762

7676

5675

1119

682767

1211

113

1377p

792p 581

-12312

857

1000

1985

8875

608

8267

6129

1578

71886

4536

768w

218P

61 157

5502

232

1000

1986

911

567

8513

6119

1686

81876

1708

1011p

391P

333 582

623P

-112

1000p

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

cosmR TABLE C-6

RICA AVERRGE MONTHLV WAGE PER SECTOR

A- Current Colones 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 1985 1986

F-

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commerce Private Services Unspecified

Total

8- Changes

Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services COM~qrce Private Services Unspecified

Total

C- Index

Agricul ture Manufacturing Construction Basic Services Commterce Private Services Unspecified

Total

655 789 1012 1293 1171 1307 1166 112 1177 1156 1350 1717 1111 706

1081 1332

205p 211P 116 188 237 272

-511p

232

606 592 961 971

1083 981 1356 1308 1089 1093 1249 1289 1336 530

o000 1000

870 1161 1172 1818 1591 1920 1620

1191

103 132 126 1 93

123 1295

122

582 S80 85

1217 1065 1290 1081

1000

1053 1661 1752 2387 1807 2135 1208

1737

210 135 190 313 136Z 107

-2541

163

606 956

1009 1374 1010 1229 695

10J0

1220 1856 2036 2319 2199 2156 1451

1983

159 1177 162 -28 217 150p 20-4

112

615 936

1027 1169 1109 1239 733

1000

1112 2251 2366 2855 2184 2809 1802

2301

157 2137 1627v 231 130 111p 239

1607

61 q 978

1028 1211 1080 1221 783

1000

2111 3126 3381 1170 3581 3902 2056

3255

197 522 129 16 1 112 389 111

115

619 1053 1039 1281 1100 1199 632

1000

3559 5520 5629 6661q 5839 5881 8579

5309

681 611 66521 598 631 508p 3173

631

670 1010 1060 1255 1100 1108 1616

1000

5291 8673 7698 981 9151 9137 6512

8176

618 1061 912 1205 1119 1151 800

1000

6038 9588 9259 11955 11111 10815 10133

9152

111 105p 203p 211P 218p 146 595

1562

639 1014 980 1265 1179 1111 1101

1000

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

COSTR TABLE C-

RICR RVERRGE MONTHLY WRGE BY INSTITUTIONAL SECTOR

R- Current Colones

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent RutonoNous Institutions

Private Sector

1976

1090

1893 1818

871

1977

1351

2338 2200

1058

1978

1513

2628 2161

1173

1979

1759

2918 2819

1389

1980

1983

3021 3062

1615

1981

2301

3793 3713

1810

1982

3255

5330 5198

2615

1983

5309

7731 8015

1176

1981 1985

61763

11220 12612

6815

1986

9152

12868 11102

8027

B- Index

Total

Public Sector

Central Governnent Autonomous Institutions

Private Sector

1000

1737 1668

799

1000

1731 1628

783

1000

1737 1629

775

1000

1676 1603

790

1000

1523 1511

811

1000

1618 1611

787

1000

1637 1597

813

1000

1157 1510

813

1000

1372 1513

83

1000

1361 1521

819

Source DGEC Household Surveys July

TABLE C-8AVERAGE MQfHLY WAGE PER GFDTMAND INSTITUIONAL SECIOR JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

PRIVATE RJBLIC SECIR SECI0R TOTAL CEIRAL AXJT VSA - 1980

Current Colones TOTAL MALES EDPAUS

1983 2056 1784

1615 1746 1199

3044 3106 2930

3021 3092 2916

3062 3115 2943

1453 1162 2400

Relative Term TOM MALES FEMALES

1000 1037 900

1000 1081 742

1000 1020 963

1000 1024 965

1000 1017 961

1000 800

1652

MALES FEMALES

1000 1000 1000

814 849 672

1535 1511 1642

1523 1504 1635

1544 1515 1650

733 565 1345

B - 1987 Current Colones

707AL 12906 10950 19384 17811 21357 NAMALES 13668 11954 20289 17997 22815 NAFEMAIES 11224 180128460 17605 18605 NA Relative Terms

TOTAL 1000 1000 10001000 1000 NAMALES 1059 1092 1047 1010 1068 NAFEMALES 870 773 929 871988 NA TOAL 1000 848 1502 1380 1655MALES 1000 875 1484 1317 1669FE ALES 1000 754 1605 1569 1658

Source Household Surveys July 1980 ard July 1087

TABLE C-9 SALARIED POUATICN BY GE2UAND INST1IONAL SEC= JULY 1980 and JULY 1987

TUAL PRIVATE PLTBLIC SECIOR UaouSECIR TOIAL CENTRAL AUJa4CH=A - 1980

Thousards TAL 5461 4039 1416 623 793 06

MALES 3992 3076 919 367 544 05 FEMALES 1469 963 505 256 249 01

Relative Terms

TO1 000 740 259 114 145 01 MALES 1000 771 230 92 136 01 FEMALES 1000 656 344 174 170 01

B - 1987 Thousaris

TO]TL 9778 8075 1536 713 769 MALES 7079 6039 939 383 508 FEMALES 2699 2036 597 33 261

Relative Terms

TOAL 1000 826 157 73 79 JLES 1000 853 133 54 72

FEMALES 1000 754 221 122 97 Source Household Survey July 1980 w4 July 1987

63

TABLE C-10 COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MITLY WAGE ES- mr

AND NATIONAL ACONTS

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

SURVEYS

Monthly Wage 1081 1332 1494 1737 1983 2301 3255 5309 8176 9452

NATIONAL ACCO=

Wages Salaries 96203 118012 143398 171482 204954 247844 381225 564321 73430 923732 1120912

Salaried pop 4474 4722 5023 515 5461 5456 5673 5675 6129 6419

Monthly Wage (1) 1792 2083 2379 2775 3128 3785 5600 8287 12560 14552

DIFTRTI NATACSURVEYS 658 564 592 597 577 645 720 561 536 540

Note (1)Calculated by dividinq the mass of wages and salaries by the salaried population(frcan the fousehold Surveys) and mensualizing

TABLE C-1OCCUPATION OF THE LABOR FORCE

BY GENDER JULY 1987

Professionalsand Technicians

Managers

Public Employees

Sales Persons

Agricultural Workers

Transport workers

Industrial Workers

Artesanal Workers

Warehousing

Service

Unspecified

First Time Entrants

TOTAL

MALES

451 64

248 35

374 53

689 97

2494 352

315 45

1298 183

36 51

216 31

511 72

58 08

64 09

7078 1000

FEMALE

388 144

71 26

376 139

305 113

122 45

02 01

361 134

99 37

78 29

82 304

22 08

55 20

2699 1000

Source Household Survey July 1987

65

First Decile Second Decile Third Decile Fourth Decile Fifth Decile Sixth Decile

Seventh Decile Eighth Decile Ninth Decile Tenth Decile

TOTAL

C Gini Coefficient

COSTA RICA TABLE C-12EVOILUTION OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISMBUTION (1) 1971

(a) Cumul 1974

(b) Cuml 1977 c Cumul

1983 (d) Cmul

19 31 41 50 63 76 94 115 165 346

19 50 91 141 204 280 374 489 654 1000

18 30 40 50 61 74 92 116 162 357

18 48 88

138 199 273 365 481 643

1000

7 21 34 46 58 72 91 121 172 378

07 28 62

108 166 238 329 450 622 1000

15 30 41 52 63 75 92

114 151 367

15 45 86

138 201 276 368 482 633 1000

1000 1000 1000 1000 043 045 049 047

Notes (1)All original data only includes morntary income (including transfers)and does not include such additional income as ntputed rents

(2) In his std_JD Trejos indicates that due to a methododlogical problemthere s been anunder evaluation of income particularly in the San JoseMetcpolitan Area

Source (a)Victor Hugo Cespedes Costa Rica La Distribucion del igresoy el Cosumo de Algunos Alimentos 1971 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(b) Victor Hugo Cespedes Evolucion de a Distribucion del Ingre-Eoen Costa Rica November 1979 IICE Univ de Costa Rica

(c) Juan Diego ejos La Distribucion del Ingreso de las FamiliasCostarrcc Algunas Caracteristicas en 1977 February 1983IICE Univ de Costa Rica (d) Juan Diego Trejos Maria Laura Elizalde E Ingresos DesigualdadYEtpeo Evidencias Recientes sobre las Caracteristicas y Evolucion delPert lDistributivo en costa Rica Revista Ciencias Econimcas Vol V2 1987

TABLE C-13IC R ITVECSIA OF SaJR OF INME 1983

HSOS WGES UMf= STrAE PRIVATE SELFPROFITS RE~r l1ASFPSCOSTA ICA UT TRANSFERS CONp TIXL Bottn 20 488 101 235 74 44Next 30 58 1000663 122 130Next 30 22 34729 103 102 29 1000Top 20 555 238 126 28 27 14 100327 45 09 1000 Total 617 176 125 27URBAN 38 17 1000 Bottan 20 524 178 164Next 30 722 80

63 61 10 1000122Next 30 27726 47 02 100081 126TOp 20 543 254 38 26 03 1000135 31 36 01 1000Total 620 176 132 34 36 02 100OJRALBottom 20 372 97 - 1300 85Next 30 602 156 157 15

45 101 1000 Next 30 717 88 20

14 56 100115Top 20 573 251 63 19 41 100004 71 38 1000Total 612 175 109 15 43 46 1000

Source Juan Diego Trejcs Maria Laura ElizaldeLa Distibci del e yel Acceso a los Programas de Caractw Socj1985 IICE Unlversid deesta Rica

VU3LE C-14

C RICA CWA=X=CS OF POOR DISIRICTS 1984

VARIABE Units POOR NON-POOR OCSA RICATotal Population 000 3134 21034 24168

129 871 100Desity petssq) 126 802 473 Rual Pu ~atin 945grA tlUma Labor Force 497 5 776W- EarnersLabor Force 251 314 462 750Wale Earn-ersAgLabor Foroe 716 410 607 549 Illiterate Poprulation

Over 12 ysm old 161 46 Seirity

First-Grace aiUdren with low 429 266 287sizeageHa nes8 120 84 898 Wthut electricityWit= 738 84R~unr Water 194

563 143In Poor conditicn 230 538 222 317 Minutes to Nearest Health Center Mn 173 64 77

Source Victor Htigo Cespedes Ra lfo Jimnez1 Evolulm de a breza en costa Ricashy1987 Acilezia de Centro a

67

ANNEX D

SOCIAL PROGRAMS

68

Table D-1

Per Capita Expenditures in Costa Rica (1970 US$)

Defqnrseshy

and

Year Education Health Secuity

1930 69 108 391935 52 93 271940 71 146 361945 53 88 34 195Ca 63 77 21 1955 113 115 39 1960 193 142 27 1965 238 233 23 1970 344 377 36 1975 493 519 54 1980 636 666 59 1981 472 586 46 1982 339 465 53 1983 383 432 64

aArmy was abolished in 1949

Source Mata Costa Rica (1985)

69

TABLE D-2 CnSrA RICA PUBLIC SPENDING BY SECIOR 1975-1985

A - Thousands of constant colones Year Total Education Health Social Security Housing

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

22734309 24019995 27706165 28549514 29969265 31572766 29678275 28854770 31284566 31510398 30110543

3502913 3894127 4150073 4415845 4650408 4865800 4617152 3992884 3915545 4042379 3918145

5545933 5329755 5610473 6684843 7920298 7906528 6078218 5085576 5342840 5479297 5143715

2284534 2162977 2072733 2412718 2934172 2509638 1975441 2058355 1918840 2495521 2684118

474563 591098 627587 609247 725411 1078458 545491 425113 718204 781889 677801

B - Percentage change and share of total

Chanqein Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

Share of Total

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

-57

153 30 50 54 -60 -28 84 07

-44

154 162 150 155 155 154 156 138 125 128 130

244 222 202 234 264 250 205 176 171 174 171

100 90 75 85 98 79 67 71 61 79 89

21 25 23 21 24 34 18 15 23 25 23

NCTES -Deflated v4th implicit price index Jn general government - f ml consumfption sPemling Costa Rican national acxunt4

-Includes comunity social econmic and financial servues

Other

10926366 12042038 15245299 14426861 13738976 15212342 16461973 17292842 19389137 18711312 17686764

Share of Total

481 501 550 505 458 482 555 599 620 594 587

D-2C

32

COSTA RICA PUBLIC SECTOR (constant colones)

SPENDING

3

28

26 24shy

22

2

20 18

16

14

12

1

08

06

04

02

1975 1976 1977

] Housing (Li)

+ L1 + Work amp SS (L2)

1978 1979

H n L2

1980

+ Health

1981

(L3)

1982

A

x

1 _3 1984 1985

L3 + Education (L4) L4 + Other

COSTA RICA RTABLE D-3

CAUAND (4UNITY HEAL PRDGRAM COVERAGE 1973-1985

Rural Health Program

1973 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1985

Rural population 1112 1169 1159 1201 1259 1342 1430

Number of Health Posts 50 140 251 287 294 301 313 Communities covered 800 2240 3750 4018 3050 4008 4163 Population covered(thousands) 115 360 650 717 640 777 835 Percent of rural

population covered 103 308 561 597

(1) 508 579 584

NOTE (1) Figure represents 95 coverage of rural dispersed population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero p 87

Community Health Program

Urban population 8576 9111 9565 9910 10200 10475 10550 10980

CPmopulation covered by 840 1950 5125 5573 5514 5277 4620 4395 (thousands)

Percent coverage 98 214 536 562 541 504 438 400

NOTE 1983 data are preliminary

SCURCE L SaenzMinistry of Health Health without Wealthof Costa Rica) 1985 p 26

(the Case

TABLE D-4COSTA RICA COVERAGE OF BENEFICIARIES IN SCHOOL

SUPPILEMENTARY

No of SchoolYear Feeding Centers

1975 1194

1976 1284

1977 2334

1978 2878

1979 2886

1980 2933

1981 2896

1982 2626

1983 2885

1984 2800

1985 2792

1986 2772

FOOD PROMGR1MS 1975-1986

Increase

-

75

818

233

03

16

-13

-93

99

-29

-03

-07

SOURCE Ministry of Public EducationOCAF

No of Beneficiaries Increase

118000 shy

165642 404

273442 651

400449 464

391938 -21

406644 38

302025 -257

384000 271

498000 297

419000 -159

434706 37

427786 -16

1987

73

D-5

Per capita expenditures in health education and securityin Costa Rica (in 1970 US$) Data were obtained from theGeneral Comptroller of Costa Rica The army progressivelydismantled during this century reached the lowest levelin the late 1940s it was abolished in 1949 after a brief revolution Expenditures after 1949correspond to the urban civil and rural guards

PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES COSTA RICA

0oF

40 $0 -

II

25

10

Ieaucation

5I 101

A Il

security

rr N

army is abolished

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Source National Health and Social Development in Costa RicaLeonardo Mata and Luis Ros~o PAHO 1988

ANNEX E

NUTRITION

75

NUIRITIONAL STATUS COSTA RICA

STANDARD

TABLE E-1 OF FIRST GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN 1979 1981 1983 Y 1985 DEVIATIONS HEIGHTAGE

STUNTED NOMAL HIGH

HEIGHT CENSUS

NUMBER OF

CHIRIREN TEAL -5 and

less

SEVERE

-499 -399 -400 -300

MODERATE

-299 -200

199 100

099 000

001 100

101 200

201 300

301 400

1979 52117 1000 01 05 36 162 340 300 125 27 04 00

1981 55324 1000 01 03 23 128 326 331 149 33 05 01

1983 59508 1000 01 02 18 106 300 348 176 44 05 00

1985 64455 1000 01 02 15 95 289 356 187 48 07 00

Source Family Allowances Unit Costa Pic 1988

6

Th-BLE E-2COSTA RICA GCtIEZ WEICGIrAGE UNDERPxJRISHME7r AMO3NG CHL[UN~AGED 0-72 MONHIS BY AREA RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

Area

Total

Urban

Ruralconcentrated

dispersed

Overweight

1978 1982

114 139

140 185

116 154 77 91

Normal

1978 1982

427 519

430 567

436 512 408 489

1st degree

1978 1982

373 306

370 225

360 309 395 366

2nd degree

1978 1982

82 33

57 22

85 22 113 51

3rd degree

1978 1982

04 03

03 02

03 03 07 04

Total Undernourishment

1978 1982

45 342

430 249

448 334 515 421

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-3COSTA RICA IOWA WEIGHTHEIGHT UNDERNOURISHMENr AMONG CIIERENAGED 0-72 MONTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

110 and over 90 - 109 80 - 89 Less than 80 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of nora Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

o Total 129 113 658 764 178 113 35 10 213 123

Urban 153 148 650 767 175 75 22 11 197 86

RuralConcentrated 128 122 667 757 166 114 40 06 206 120Dispersed 100 78 657 769 201 140 42 13 243 153

NOTE -Unernourishiuent (i~e stunted qrowth) considered to be below90 of norms established by the US NCHS Oerweight childrenconsidered to be at 110 or more of age-group norms SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-4JSTA _IOWA_ HEGHTAGE UNDERNOURISHMENT AMONG CHILDRENAGED 0-72 MCNTHS BY AREA OF RESIDENCE 1978 AND 1982

105 and over 95 - 104 90 - 94 85 - 890 Less than 85 TotalArea of normal of normal of normal of normal of normal Undernourishment

1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982 1978 1982

Total 43 90 610 693 271 179 58 33 18 05 76 38 Urban 51- 120 634 713 244 138 56 26 15 03 71 29 RuralConcentrated 45 92 616 684 280 188 47 32Dispersed 29 12 04 59 3665 571 687 192 202 78 38 30 08 108 46

NOTE -Undernourishment (ie stunted growth) considered to be below 90 of norms established by the US NCHS

SOURCES Ministry of Health National Nutrition Surveys 1978 and 1982

TABLE E-5

NJIRrONAL 6TAJS (WEIGHrAGE) OF pRESIO[LERS PARTICIPATING IN SUPPfLUEW y FOOD

Q0STA RICA 1976 - 1980

509 Overweight -50

442 Normal45 - Fil

40 shy 358 1st Degree

35 -undernourishrrient bull 343

30 shy 2nd - 3 rd Degree

25 Undernourishment

20shy

156

90

10shy

05- ~44

15-

lI 1976 1980

Source Nutrition Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica

TABLE E-6COSTA RICA CALORIC INTAKE PER BENEFICIARYMONTHIN THE SCHOOL SUPPLEMENTARY FOOD PROGRAMS 1981-1985

YEAR AVERAGE MONTHLY DAILY

1981 8896 2962 1982 1983 1984 1985

5706 5450 4668 3904

1903 1816 1556 1301

SOURCE Office of Family Allowances and Social Development (OCAF) 1985

81

TABLE E-7

AVERAGE FOOD CmNS riON PER PERONDAY (In Graxim)

FAMILY LEVFLFOOD URBAN AREA 1950 1966 1978 1982

i1

Milk 19700 35000 34200 22100 Meat 6500 7400 9000 7300Pulses 7000 4800 4000 3800Vegetables 8400 12600 8400 11800 Rice 9300 1C300 11900 11800Sugar 10400 7700 6000 4500Fats 1700 4100 3700 3700

RURAL AREA

Milk 9700 19300 29000 19000Meat 3800 4000 4700 4000Pulses 6300 5700 4800 5100Vegetables 4400 6600 6700 9100 Rice 5900 10000 11800 15300Sugar 13600 8900 7800 6700 Fats 900 1900 4000 3700

Source CENCINA Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1988

CiILD 1978

75600 570O 1000 5200 4400 4200 1700

CHILD

60300 2500 1300 3400 4600 5700 1500

1982

61700 3300 1400 5000 5200 4400 2000

54300 2700 2000 5100 6100 5200 2300

82

TABLE E-8

AVERAGE PERCENTGE OFCALORIES S AND NTRIENTS OF COSTA RICAN DIES IN REATION

AS 2250 CAlORIESDAYPERSON

T0 MINIMUM DAILY RDUIR I (1950 shy 1982)

PRESCHOOLERS

AREA YEAR CAIORIES I FRM S IRON VITAMIN A

URBAN 1978 10600 9100 8500 26600 URBAN 1982 10400 17000 8000 16400

RURAL RURAL

1978 1932

9100 11000

j 14300 16400

7700 8500

14700 12200

FAMILY LEVEL

URBAN 1950 10000 10500 16300 4900 1966 10600 11100 15500 9700 1978 9900 14300 8500 14700 1982 9900 12200 9800 7500

RURAL 1950 9900 8700 22400 2200 1966 9100 9800 15000 4900 1978 9600 12500 9500 6900 1982 9300 11200 10000 4800

MINIMUM DAILY PDJ 4EMEI-S

AND 60 GRAMSPRCEINS

Source Ministry of Health CENCINA Unit 1988

83

Cost of basic food basket (colones per day)

Incre f torevious year

Minimum wage(colones per day)

Increase fiat revious year(percen--

Basket costMinimum wage (percent)

TABLE E-9COSTA RICA COMPARISON OF COST OF BASIC FOOD BASKET WITH MINIMUM WAGE 1978-1984

(current colones)

1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

308 352 427 603 1377 1788

143 213 412 1284 298

NA NA 578 650 1114 1963

125 714 762

739 928 1236 911

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987

1940

85

2197

119

883

p 68

1984

TABLE E-IIOCSTA RICA AVERAGE CALORIC CXNSUMPTION BY IEVEL OFHOUSEHOLD PER CAPITA INCIJME 1982

(Survey results) Average Per

Income ]Level(colones per month) Number ofHomes of Capita IncomeTotal (colones per month) Average Caloric ConsumptionPer Capita Per Unit

Extreme Poverty

Less than 200 38 57 125 1640 2264200 to less than 400 92 139 309 2077 2738 400 to less than 600 114 172 509 2023 2659600 to less than 800 83 125 716 2114 2841

Bracket Average 4148 19635 Poverty

800 to less than 1000 93 140 913 2180 28541000 to less than 1500 121 183 1239 2171 28341500 to less than 2000 44 66 1750 2379 3046

Bracket Average 13007 22433 Non-Poverty

2000 to less than 3000 40 60 2469 2607 34023000 to less than 4000 20 30 3370 2247 3054 4000 and over 18 27 8833 2283 3007

663 1000 Bracket Average 48907 23790

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 p 70

CX)STARICATABLE E-12COSTA RICA AVERAGE CXMPOSITION OF CAIORIC AND PRIPDMNINTAKE bY URBANRURAL AREAS 1982

National

Food source

Vegetable productsRice Wheat Pasta Corn Other cereals White sugarHoneyJam Beans Other legumesFresh vegetablesRootsBaarasPlantains Other fruits Vegetable butter Other vegetable greasesCoffee Carbonated beveragesOther beveragesOther vegetable sources

Animal productsMilkdairyMeats ggs

Fish Butter Other animal greasesOther animal sources

Urban Rural

Calories Protein

831 694 265 228 60 73 16 20 35 35 02 02

119 00 16 01 87 225 00 01 26 33 23 13 24 01 04 03

137 00 14 01 17 40 01 00 00 01 03 06

136 305 71 134 43 120 12 36 03 15 04 02 02 00 00 00

Calories

798 248 77 16 25 03

113 12 75 01 25 22 22 07

125 25 17 02 00 04

171 78 62 15 04 10 01 00

Protein

633 200 92 19 24 02 00 01

187 01 33 13 09 04 00 01 38 00 00 07

365 138 164 41 20 00 00 00

Calories

771 234 91 16 16 03

109 08 65 01 25 21 20 09

115 34 17 03 01 04

200 84 78 17 05 15 00 00

Protein

583 177 108 18 15 02 00 00

155 02 33 13 07 04 00 01 36 00 00 08

416 141 202 47 24 01 00 00

SOURCE Situacion de Salud en Costa Rica March 1987 pp 66-67 1

ANNEX F

HEALTH

86

Disease 1970 1971 1972

TABLE F-ICOSTA RICA RATES OF DISEASES PREVENTIBLE BY VACINES 1970-1985

(per 100000 population)

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Policmyelitis

Diphtheria

Wooping comgh

W Measles

Tetanus

13 01 27 02

33 58 27 13 726 803 788 567

2703 2035 2534 1200

51 40 45 43

-

05

601

269

35

-

03

599

382

24

-

-

512

890

28

-

-

234

1005

22

-

-

44

166

22

-

-

144

3192

15

-

-

423

445

08

-

-

73

74

06

-

-

27

69

07

31

16

03

66

02

03

51

003

-

SOURCE Ministry of Health et al Health Situation in Costa Rica March 1987 p 273

TABLE F-2

IMJNIZATION OVERAGE FOR CHIIa7U 0 - 5 YFARS OLD COSTA RICA 1986

NO OF DOSES

(N)

Polio Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose 3 or more doses Not kown

DPT Not vaccinated 1 dose 2 dose r more doses Not knxKEn

Measles Not vaccinated Vaccinated Not known doses

0 1

(399) (420)

213 17 241 24 246 98 288 852 12 09

231 17 220 29 256 95 288 845 05 14

857 195 115 779 28 26

_ National Fertility and Health r-ta Pir-An rV-mrrr-rhjr- etjv

CHLDS AGE (years)

2 3

(363) (372) (377)

14 16 03 22 08 05 63 30 11

890 933 968 11 13 13

14 16 03 25 13 08 66 19 19

884 933 960 11 19 10

85 46 24 898 941 966 17 13 10

Survey

VACCDIZATION

TB DPT PolioMeasles and

German Measles

TABLE F-3 I IZATICN COVERAGE FMR atrLuN

0-1 YEARS OLD COST RICA 1980-1986

YEAR

1980 1981 1982 1983 1 1984 1985 1986

568 548 599 395 698 629 347 579 596 634 563 684 646 568 571 538 632 555 681 622 548

478 383 383 6 3a 4 0a 2 1a 3 3 4 b a Beginning in 1983 this vaccination was given only to children

after 1 year of ageb Inrease because of epidemics

i UNICEF Costa Rica 1986 based on Epidemiologic Surveillance Unit Ministry of Health Costa Rica 1986 88

4

TABLE F-4

IATION COVERAGE k PER AREA OF RESIDCE WMRS EUJCkICN AND INOIME LV7M

(QuflMY 0-4 YMES OID) 1986

(N) Polio 1 DPI I Measle

T otal (1532) 909 904 892 Prea of Reside-e Metroplitan (436) 897 885 883 Urban (345) 910 901 893 Rira] (751) 916 916 897

Mothers Education Priary irK lete (400) 852 845 850 Primary in=TIpcte (514) 922 910 897 Secondary inc~l_ lte (323) 926 920 972 Secoumary cpletkd or More studies (289) 945 941 910

Ira Level LOW (689) 170 872 358 Medixd (580) 945 929 922 High (263) 932 932 916

Total of 3 doses ocipleted

Sour-e Naticnal Fertility and Health Survey Costa Rican Demographic Association Costa Rica 1986

89

TABLE F-5OSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFA MORT= RATE BY CANImMEAN KRUA W HEALTH PROGRAM COVEAGEAND LEVEL OF AGRI1 RAL ACrIVITY 1965-1986

Mean Coveage Infant Mor-tality -Ate Mean Anual Infant Mortality1972-80 (per 10) 6ate lin (percent)(percent) 1968-69 1979 80 1965-72 1973-80

ALL CMTNS

TOTAL 64 21 50 120 0-9

10-2425-49 50-74 75-100

49 4964 76 80

21 1923 22 17

80 8030 40 50

70 70

140 150 160

NON-AGRIaITLTRAL CANTONS

TOTAL 58 20 60 110 0-9 45 19 90 7010-24 49 20 C0 10025-49 63 22 5 0 13050-74 86 25 50 15075-100 88 19 50 190

AGRIcuiIURAL CANIONS

TOTAL 71 21 30 140 0-9 84 39 60 8010-24 37 25 80 5025-49 64 24 10 15050-74 71 24 30 14075-100 78 17 50 160

NCIES -Less than 50 aerricultural population- -50 or more agricultural population

SOURCE Mata and Rosero 1985 p 166

90

TABLE F-6COSTA RICA MORTALITY TRENDS BY AGE GROUP 1900-1980

Mortality Rate (per thousar )

Year 1 - 4 5 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 yearsyears years years years and over

1900 4726 633 1451 2485 82121910 5060 540 1210 2398 80751920 4655 714 1476 2636 80871930 3486 486 860 1704 71401940 2681 345 741 1583 70841950 1712 209 426 1125 65511960 796 116 232 803 59611965 775 109 229 773 59141970 566 094 204 694 57441975 236 073 180 592 54801980 097 057 143 520 5302

Average Annual Reduction (percent)

1900-1980 49 30 29 20 061900-1940 14 15 17 11 041940-1960 61 54 58 34 091960-1970 34 21 13 15 041970-1980 176 50 36 29 08

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta ican Demograftic Assn March 1984 p 42

91

1962

TABLE F-7 COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTALITY RATE

BY SOCIOECONOMIC GROUP 1962-1981 (per thouisandi)

1964 1967 1969 1971 1972 1975 1977 1980 1981 Decrease 1962-1969

Decrease 1971-1981

National Total 816 914 705 741 621 603 415 307 204 195 92 686

Non-agricultural Sector Middle classes

Salaried manual laborers

577

776

574

806

472

653

436

654

434

604

383

552

268

403

185

294

149

208

138

185

244

157

682

694

Marginal workers 826 823 674 709 568 541 443 321 268 268 142 528

Agricultural Sector

Poor peasants

Other peasants

Unskilled laborers

875 935

700 712

994 1071

838

666

926

872

670

871

809

726

842

661

495

796

540

375

549

392

262

406

322

206

293

289

177

245

03

43

124

643

756

709

Unclassified 845 892 738 689 657 658 453 327 243 221 185 664

SOURCE CEIADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 77

TABLE F-8COSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MOORTA

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE AND MATERNAL (per thousand)

Year of Birth

RATE BY AREA OFEDUCATION 1965 TO 1984

1970-74

Total of MortalitSample Tbtal Rate

3016 1000

701 232 39 522 173 75

1793 594 71

1241 411 83 1253 415 56 522 173 40

64

1981-84

Total of MortalitSample Total Rate

1533 1000

442 211 25 340 162 15 751 359 17

239 114 29 669 319 12619 296 23

19

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more National Total

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education (years)

Less than 4 4 to 6

7 and more

National Total

Total Sample

3329

805 578

1946

16461269

414

TotalSanmple

2094

583 444

1067

483 934 677

1965-69

of Total

1000

242 174 585

494 381 124

1975-79

ofTotal

1000

278 212 510

231 446 323

MortalityRate

51 71 86

89 73 24 75

MortalityRate

17 18 26

33 20 16

22

SOURCE National Fertility and Health Survey p 75

93

TABLE F-9CSTA RICA TRENDS IN INFANT MORTA= RATE BY AREA OF

RESIDENCE MATENAL EDUCATION AND BREAST FEEDING 1961-1975

Mortality Rates For

of All Older N Total Infants Neonates Infants

T=IAL 8964 1000 70 32 38

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area 2170 242 48 17 31Urban Valley 864 96 58 32 26 Rural Valley 1858 207 59 26 33Other Urban 690 77 93 35 58Other Rural 3382 377 89 44 44

Level of Education (years)

Less than 3 2715 303 98 44 54 3 to 5 3147 351 67 29 38

6 1724 192 59 29 30 7 to 10 677 76 51 21 30

11 285 32 25 21 4 12 or more 416 46 17 12 5

Breast Feeding

Did receive 6864 766 56 25 31 Did not receive 2031 227 110 52 58

NOTES -Less than 1 yr of age-Less than 1 mo of age

-1-l miio of age

SOURCE Rosero in Mortality and Fertility in Costa RicaCosta kican Demographic Assn Maih 1984 p 26

94

Area of Residence

San Jose Metropolitan Area Other Urban

Rural

Level of Education Incomplete Primary

Co-lete PrimaryIncomplete Secondar-y

Complete Secondary or Above

Age at Time of Survey (years)

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49

Income Level

LOWMedium High

TABLE F-10COSTA RICA LEVELS OF PRNATAL CARE BY MATERNAL AGEAREA OF RESIDENCE EUCATON AND INCEIO 1986

(percent)

None Partial Complete 56 204 74057 170 774

117 279 604

169 267 56385 274 641 51 224 705 21 128 851

96 442 462 88 246 66567 180 752

153 111 736

150 302 54844 218 73820 97 883

NOTES -Last live birth in 1981 or later-Less than at least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy-At least 1 medical visit per trimester of pregnancy SOURCE Survey data reported in Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986Asociacion Debgrafica Costarricense 1987 p 78

95

TABLE F-IlCOSTA RICA INFANT MORALITY BY GROUPS OF CAUSES 970-1984

(rates per 10000 live births)

e 70a_8Cause of Death 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 197h8

Diarrheal diseases 162 145 148 119 79 77 55 39 26 21 15 11 13 17 11 -932 Infectious diseases 46 32 32 22 18 18 12 6 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 -978

preventible by vaccine

Malnutrition 14 11 24 11 11 21 21 10 6 3 2 2 5 2 3 -786 Respiratory diseases 126 112 96 64 53 58 46 37 28 30 27 24 24 17 24 -810

Low birthweight 75 66 72 48 42 40 26 31 23 21 13 7 5 6 13 -827

Other perinatal 47 62 59 68 80 62 75 69 67 70 70 77 86 83 85 809(l)diseases

Other treatable causes 48 52 44 35 33 39 25 23 15 19 9 5 5 6 6 -875(eg meningitis)

Congenital anomalies 34 29 32 40 37 38 51 46 43 37 38 41 46 29 44 294(l)

Other 130 11F- 92 62 59 59 49 41 31 33 46 17 17 37 17 -869

Note Increases are at least partially due to better diagnostic and reporting

SOURCE CELADE Costa Rica Social Groups at Risk for Infant Survival 1960-1684 p 81

TABLE F-12 GLOBAL MORTALITY RATES PER SPECIFIC CAUSES OF DEATHS

COSTA RICA 1916-78

Rate per

100000

- Malaria 200-

I I bull Measles

100

V T 1 ho i I

30shy

20shy

7

5shy

2r

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Source DGEC Anuarios Estadisticos Costa Rica 1980

1970

--

__

TABLE F-13 Crude diarrheal disease death rate and infant mortalityrate in Costa Rica 1926-1982 Note that all peaksdepressions and plateause of both mortality curvescoincide (Mata 1985)

COSTA RICA 1928-1982 500

500400k j 400

300

I z200I 200 z AA diarrhea -V

0 0

0 100 M on

770 infant 70 -v6 0 -60 50- 50 8

-I40 lt 400-4 -LU 0lt30 30 m

rshylt 20-00o 20 W

10 10

5 i I i l I - 151930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

Source National Health and Social Development in CostaRica Leonardo Mat and Luis Rosero PAHO 1988

TABLE F-] 4 Effects of different variables on the trend of infantmortality rate in Costa Rica according to its explanatorymodel Note that primary and secondary health careaccounted for most of the reduction in infant mortality

EXPECTED EVOLUTION OF INFANT MORTALITY 70

60 socioeconomic progress 22

lriiyreducti1 5 I - 3eCO hea

Care 32 J

L- Observed rates

LU 30 I- = Care 41

20

10

0 -1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980

Source Mata amp Rosero PAHO 1988

99

TABLE F-15a

COSTA RICA HISRICAL SANfl=TIN

COVERAGE 1980-1986

WATE SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RURAL AREAS OP- POP PERCN URBAN IVTAL PERMIT RURAL TOTALYEAR ULlN PRSERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED

1980 2210 2044 925 1025 1016 991 1185 1028 868 1984 2405 2319 964 1070 1059 990 1335 1260 944 1988 2531 2442 965 1126 1115 990 1405 1327 940

POULATION FIGURESARE ROUNDED TO NEAREST THOUSAND

SourWash Field Report No 209 LACUSAID Noverber 1987

TABLE F-15b

COTA RICA HISTORICAL MUTM SUPPLY

(VERA 1980-1986

Vol SUPPLY

ALL AREAS URBAN AREAS RAL AREAS

OP- OP URBAN T P RYEAR ULATIc SERVED SERV POP SERVED SERVED POP SERVED SERVED 1980 2210 1960 887 1025 1025 1000 1185 935 789 1984 2405 2154 896 1070 1059 999 1335 1095 820 1988 2531 2281 901 1126 1115 990 1405 1166 830

OPJLATION FIGURES ARE RCUNDED TO NEAREST nhZUSAND

00

ANNEX G

EDUCATION

101

TABLE G-1OSTA RICA SHARE OF CENTRAL GVEPRNM BUDGETALLOCATED TO NINISTRY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 1978-1986

1978 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

Public Education asShare of Global Budget 308 290 227 214 222 228

Public Education as Share of GDP 59 42 45 43 43 37

S(URCiS SERH Education and Human Resources SectoralDevelopment Plan 1986-1990 Vol 2 p 105

L Guadamuz Education and its Role in NationalDevelopment p 14

-------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ------- --------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------

T[cALE G-2 COSTA RICR TRENDS IN L FOGLHENTw BY CYCLE AND GRADEp 1980-1986

1980 1981 1982 1983 1981 li85 1986 ChangP Change Change Change Change ChangeCycleGrade Absolute x fbsolute X Absolute Absolut X Rbsoltite P Absolute 2

TOTAL 609159 610572 02 601862 -i1 591966 -11p 5-767 Ox 609736 25 631265 10

Preschool 21891 23782 86 27155 131 31008 129 29220 -50 36356 244 38705 65

Cyd-s I and II 34867-1 317971 -02 312533 -16 313500 01 350658 20 C2877 35 380381 48

Cycle I 51 G2 63

187275 62127 63386 61162

189181 61280 66786 58118

10 30 51

-51

190887 63021 68187 59679

09 -20 21 272

1137161 7318i 63107 60870

31 166 -75 20

203636 76239 67361 60036

312 37k 67X

-11

212313 81199 68589 62525

13 65Z 18 11

221102 86918 72651 61533

56 0x 59 32

Cycle 1I G0 65 66

161399 55315 5727 18807

158790 51518 57110 19832

-16 -09x 03 21

151616 19082 52995 19569

-15P -17 -77R -05

116336 -35 54168 1012 16655 -120 45513 -82

117022 56012 1931 11633

05X 35 58n -85

150561 55879 59700 13985

21 -03 27 56X

156282 59038 51356 15888

38 5 13 13

0 Night School 5983 5702 -17 3666 -357 3111 -692 3351 -18 3191 -18 3U61 -11

awd Cycle IIIDivorsifid Education 173785 171122 -15 165619 -329 153971 -70 117589 -11 139825 -53 111691 13k

Cycle III 6 G8 G9

118022 12182 1379 317-2

113731 39126 12117 32158

-36 -72 -38

13

106151 37161 38871 30116

-61 -57 -78 -5

97162 -81 39907 71 30127 -225 27128 -98

91362 39711 29681 21967

-32 -05N -15k -90

90779 37719 28100 21630

-38 -19 -43 -13

93757 41611 27806 21310

33 103k -21 -13

iverifid Education GO Gil

55763 29106 23040

57391 30307 23155

29 31 05

59198 30777 21118

31 162 13z

56509 28511 23569

-15 -71 -21

53227 26612 22127

-58 -66k -61

19016 25219 20327

-79 -53k -81

17931 21928 19518

-23 -12 -10

G12 3317 3929 185X 1273 88X 1126 36 4158 07 3500 -215 3188 -0-3z

Special Education 3233 3715 158 3606 -37 3831 62 3736 -09 3853 15 1518 13

Higtor Educaton University

Prauniversity

55593 50812 1781

5821 52981 5263

18X 13m

10 19

58953 12 54313 252 1610 -1102

58912 51272 1670

O -012 06

60e5z 51466 5591

19 04

198Z

63631 58208 5123

59 69z

-31

65903 60100 58P3

36 33 70

NOTE K-Enrollment in public private and semiprivate schools inday and night classes

SOURCEt Ministry of Education Resultado de la Encuesla do Expansion del Sistema Educativo 1996 February 1987 pp 13-41

TABLE G-3COSTA RICA E LI2MI4EN RATES BY PROVINCE 1982-1986 (percent)

Presctl

--Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 6-11 year oldpuation

Provin e 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1982-86 National 472 478 441 538 566 199 San Jose AlajuelaCitago Hereda

Guanacaste Puritarnas

Litmon

599 340 569 726 332 219 331

574 397 629 736 320 211 326

553 356 547 666 279 200 272

630 436 711 817 395 252 376

652 451 870 798 386 276 425

88 326 529 99

163 260 284

Cycles I and II (Daytime) National 1060 1042 1041 1042 1043 -16

San Jose Alajuela _C-tac9oHeredia

940 1014 11461011

934 1115 10741168

939 1107 10761133

965 1016 11271130

935 1113 10791125

-05 98

-58113 Guanacaste Puntarenas

Limon

1294 1132 1217

1107 1069 1135

1108 1073 1141

1316 921

1157

1105 1079 1176

-146 -47 -34

Cycle IIIDiversified National 392 363 357 368 359 -84

San Jose AlajuelaCaktagoHeredia

Guanacaste Puntarenas

Lian

468 348 328 599 347 254 310

443 311 326 581 296 219 286

439 296 318 560 309 211 281

425 276 314 527 308 180 263

432 316 343 539 313 211 267

-77 -92 46

-100 -98

-169 -139

NOTES --Calculated by dividing total enrollment by 5-year-old population --Calculated b dividing total enrollment by 12-17 year oldppation

SOJCE Dept of Pjblic Education 1986 Eduicational System Survey pp 38-40

104

TABLE G-4OSTA RICA qOWlIN NUMBER OF SCiOOLSAND URBANRAL DISTRIBUrION BY LEVELOF INSTRUCTION 1970-1sect86

Distribution of Average Annual Growth Rates Schools (1986)

Level of Education 1970 1974 1979 1984 1970-74 1974-79 1979-84 1974-84 Urban Rural

D

Total Preschool

Cycles Iand II Cycle III and

2817 106

2582

3386 340

2814

3614 360

3001

3935 492

3068

47 338

22

13 11

13

17 64

04

15 38

09

500 93

833

500 907

167 iversifiet Education

Academic Technical Artistic

127

107 19 1

200

147 52 1

242

169 72 1

241

165 75 1

120

83 286

-

39

28 67

-01

-05 08

19

12 37

631

793 276

1000

369

207 724

--HIgher Education 2 5 11 5 NA NA University

Superior Education Special Education

1 1

NA

3 2

29

5 6

NA

5 NA

129

-

-

-- - NA

860

NA NA

140

NOTE -Does not include non-university higher education SOURCES Minist of_ablic Education Memoria 1984 as reported in IDB

Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6aampco February 1987 p 93 Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey p 21

TABLE G-5(OSTA RICA REPTION RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 -- 13 25 174 179 181 1792 187 167 156 168 141 135 124 3 133 130 113 121 119 110 98 4 - 04 07 93 93 90 815 89 90 83 86 66 61 536 23 22 19 21 23 19 16

Total 78 74 71 116 112 109 102

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 - - - 131 139 138 1208 161 142 135 151 113 110 1079 82 87 78 87 87 76 6810 97 112 98 97 103 92 8511 39 29 33 34 33 34 2612 12 19 19 12 14 13 07

Total 76 74 69 105 100 95 86

SCURCE Ministry of Public Education 1986 Educational System Survey pp 131 134

TABLE G-6 COSTA RICA FAILURE RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

1984 1985 1986Grade I_-vel 1980 1981 1982 1983

- 127 139 144 145 145 2 126 118 128 103 97 96 99 1 shy

3 92 85 92 89 85 74 78 4 -- - 73 73 72 64 65 5 67 65 68 55 48 44 45 6 18 16 20 18 17 14 13

Total 52 50 88 85 84 81 83

Cycle IIIDiversified (Daytime)

7 -- 02 195 199 187 168 173 8 180 155 180 122 115 110 115 9 79 54 86 97 78 67 78

10 125 116 142 146 135 113 126 11 36 27 38 41 37 36 40 12 15 14 13 12 10 11 12

Total 88 72 133 125 115 103 113

NOTE --Cycle I and II data through November of each year bull-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Lectivo 1986 pp 47 60

Province

G SrA RICA

oSan Jose

Alajuela

Cartago

HereAia

Guanacaste

Pinta-renas

Limon

TABLE G-9CISTA RICA EDUCATIONAL PROFILE BY PROVINCE 1984

Level of Instruction ( of 5+ population)

School Attendance ( of 5+ population)

Population aged5 years or older None Primary Secondary Univ Attends Does Not

2093987 138 578 216 68 283 717 777062 111 518 270 100 307 693 371892 146 622 181 51 251 749 235326 135 627 186 52 274 726 171576 110 536 257 97 306 694 168389 162 613 184 41 275 725 226539 193 629 154 24 266 734 143203 187 633 156 23 268 732

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Expansion of Regular Systemof Instruction 1987 p 92

Illiteracy ( of 10+ population)

69

43

79

71

44

100

117

109

TABLE G-7(XSTA RICA DROPOUT RATES BY EDUCATIONAL CYCLE 1980-1986

Cycles I and II

Grade Level 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986

1 50 44 42 40 34 NA 302 47 43 48 30 24 NA 203 46 39 48 27 23 NA 214 35 33 37 28 23 NA 205 42 41 47 29 25 NA 216 28 24 26 23 21 NA 17

Total 42 38 42 30 26 NA 22

Cycle IIIDiversified

7 125 137 199 174 181 175 1688 126 129 159 109 8490 909 60 64 86 74 68 68 5510 78 92 114 95 88 8311 43 45 49 42 39 82

40 4112 19 32 27 26 25 62 49 Total 94 100 129 107 104 102 97

NOTE -1985 Cycle I and II data not availaole because of lack of consistency-1986 data are preliminary

SOURCE Ministry of Public Education Rendimiento Curso Iectivo 1986 pp 29 41

TABLE G-8

ABSOLUiE AND RELATIVE EWOPOUT RATES (III CYCLE PBLIC AND PRIVATE)

1982-1986

YEAR 1982 1983 1984 1985 198 6a

TYPE ABSOIL=E RELATIVE ABSoLE REIATIE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOLUTE RELATIVE ABSOUTE RELATIVE

TOTAL 26775 162 21991 143 21857 151 20568 149 19863 140

Academic (day)

Academic

(night)

Technical

11929

9943

4903

119

284

162

9965

8866

3160

104

295

115

9133

9825

2899

102

331

113

8446

9297

2825

98

337

115

8471

8655

2737

95

323

107

a_Preliminary data 1 Number of dropouts divided by enollment

Source Statistical Unit Ministry of Education Costa Rica 1986

BIBLIOGRAPY

112

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antill6n Juan Jaramillo Los Problemas de la Salud en Costa Rica San Josd 1984

Asociaci6n Demogrdfica Costarricense San Jos6 Mortalidad y Fecundidad en Costa Rica March 1984

Demografia y Epidemiologia en Costa Rica March 1985

Encuesta Nacional de Fecundidad y Salud 1986 March 1987

Banco Central de Costa Rica Cuentas Nacionales

CELADEMOHUCRLos Grupos Sociales de Riesgo para la Sobrevivencia Infantil 1960-1984 Series A 1041 San Josd March 1987

C6spedes Victor HugoCosta Rica La Distribuci6n del Ingreso y el Consumo de AlQunos AlimentosInstituto de Investicaciones Escuala de Ciencias Econ6micas y SocialesUniversidad de Costa Rica 1973

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio The Political Economy of Growth Equity and Poverty Alleviation Costa Rica 1950-1985 Draft World Bank Workshop on The Political Economy of Poverty Equity and Growth New Dehli January1988

C~spedes Victor Hugo Gonzdlez-Vega Claudio Jim~nez Ronulfo and Lizano Eduardo

Problemas Econ6micos en la D~cada de los 80 San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Una Economia en Crisis San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Crisis y Empobrecimiento San Jos6 Editorial Studium 1983

Costa Rica Estabilidad sin Crecimiento San Jos6 Academia de Centroam~rica 1984

C~spedes Victor Hugo Di Mare Alberto and Jim~nez Ronulfo Costa Rica Recuperaci6n sin Reactivaci6n San Jos6 Academia de Centroamdrica 1985

Costa Rica La Economia en 1985 San Jose Academia de Centroam6rica 1986

C6spedes Victor Hugo and Jim~nez Ronulfo Evoluci6n de la Pobreza en Costa Rica San Jos6 Academia de Centroam6rica 1987

Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos Encuesta Nacional de Hogares Empleo y Desempleo 1976-1987

Doryan-Garron Eduardo ExplaininQ Development StrateQy Choice by State Elites The Costa Rican Case PhD Thesis Harvard University May 1988

113

Fields Gary Employment and Economic Growth in Costa Rica 1985

Gindling T H An Investigation into the Existence of Labor Market Segmentation The Case of San Jose Costa Rica Tulane University 1987

Guadanuz Lorenzo Educaci6n Y su Rol en el Desarrollo Nacional San Josd Ministry of Education

Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica La Pobreza en los Ochenta (Un Andlisis sobre su MagnitudCaracteristicas y Evoluci6n) 1988

Inter-American Development Bank Costa Rica Informe Socioecon6mico February 1987

Mata Leonardo and Rosero Luis National Health and Social Development in Costa Rica A Case Study of Intersectoral Action Pan American Health Organization Technical Paper 13

Ministerio de Educaci6nDepartamento de Estadistica Resultados de la Encuesta de Expansi6n del Sistema Educativo 1986 San Jos6 February 1987

Expansi6n del Sistema Regular de Ensefanza 1987 San Jos6 August 1987

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Costa Rica El Empleo en la Crisis Actual 1980-1982 San Jos6 1983

La Crisis y la Evoluci6n del Empleo y los Ingresos en Costa Rica San Jos6 1984

Segmentaci6n del Mercado de Trabajo en el Area Metropolitana de San Jos6 1985

Ministerio de Planificaci6n Nacional y Politica Econ6mica Centro Latinoamericano de Demografia and Direcci6n General de Estadistica y Censos

Costa Rica Estimaciones y Provecciones de Poblaci6n 1950-2025 San Jos6 1988

Costa Rica Proyecci6n de la Poblaci6n Econ6micamente Activa por Sexo yEdad 1985-2000 San Jos6 1988

Diferencias Geoqrdficas en el Nivel de Desarrollo Social 1984 Document 10 San Jos6 July 1987

El Gasto P~blico en los Sectores Sociales Aspectos Metodol6gicos 1987

Programa Regional del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (PREALCILO) Costa Rica Caracteristicas de las Microempresas y sus Duefios 1984

Poblaci6n y Fuerza de Trabajo en Am6rica Latina 1950-1980 1985

Estadisticas e Indicadores Socioecon6micos del Istmo Centroamericano 1950shy1980 1987

Poverty and Labor Market in Costa Rica 1987

Migraciones Internas y Mercado de Trabajo en San Jos6 Costa Rica 1987

114

Pobreza y Mercado de Trabajo an Cuatro Paises Costa Rica Venezuela Chile y Per6 1987

Descentralizaci6n y Participaci6n Popular La Salud Rural en Costa Rica September 1983

Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social Direcci6n General de Planificaci6n del Trabajo

Caracteristicas Socioecon6micas de los Diferentes Niveles de Pobreza en Costa Rica Julio 1983 Metodologia CEPAL San Jos 1988

Alqunos Aspectos del Empleo en el Periodo 1976-1986 San Jos6 1988

Rosero Luis Fecundidad y Anticoncepci6n en Costa Rica 1981 San Jos6 1981

Saenz Lenin Salud sin Riquezas El Caso de Costa Rica Ministerio de Salud San Jos6 1983

SERH Plan Sectorial de Desarrollo 1986-1990 Vol 2 San Jos6 1985

Trejos Juan Diego and Elizalde Maria Laura Inresos Desiqualdad y Empleo Evidencias Recientes sobre lan Caracteristicas y Evoluci6n del Perfil Distributivo enI Costa Rica Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol VI No 2 Universidad de Costa Rica 1986

Trejoe Juan DiegoLa Distribuci6n del Ingreso de las Familias Costarricenses AlqunasCaracteristicas en 1977 Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Econ6micas 1983

Uthoff Andras and Pollack MollyAndlisis Microecon6mico del Ajuste del Mercado de Trabajo en Costa Rica 1979-1982 Lecciones para un Modelo Macroecon6mico Revista de Ciencias Econ6micas Vol V No 117-36 Universidad de Costa Rica 1985

WASH Project Planning for Central America Water Supply and Sanitation Program -Report209 November 1987

1J5

Page 11: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 12: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 13: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 14: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 15: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 16: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 17: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 18: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 19: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 20: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 21: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 22: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 23: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 24: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 25: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 26: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 27: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 28: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 29: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 30: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 31: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 32: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 33: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 34: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 35: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 36: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 37: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 38: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 39: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 40: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 41: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 42: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 43: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 44: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 45: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 46: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 47: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 48: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 49: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 50: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 51: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 52: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 53: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 54: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 55: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 56: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 57: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 58: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 59: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 60: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 61: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 62: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 63: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 64: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 65: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 66: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 67: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 68: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 69: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 70: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 71: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 72: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 73: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 74: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 75: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 76: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 77: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 78: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 79: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 80: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 81: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 82: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 83: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 84: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 85: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 86: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 87: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 88: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 89: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 90: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 91: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 92: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 93: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 94: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 95: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 96: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 97: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 98: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 99: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 100: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 101: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 102: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 103: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 104: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 105: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 106: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 107: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 108: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 109: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 110: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 111: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 112: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 113: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 114: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 115: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 116: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 117: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 118: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 119: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 120: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 121: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 122: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 123: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.
Page 124: P., FA F7. ALLEN ASSO(AT-.S, INC.