Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration … · · 2015-11-16Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration ... SURVEY 1979-80 ZEBA A. SATHAR SYED MUBASHIR ALl G. MUSTAFA

Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration

Project Report No 8

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICSOF THE POPULATION IN PAKISTAN: FINDINGS OF THE

POPULATION, LABOUR FORCE AND MIGRATIONSURVEY 1979-80

ZEBA A. SATHARSYED MUBASHIR ALlG. MUSTAFA ZAHID

December 1984

PAKISTAN INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

POST BOX 1091, ISLAMABAD

(PAKISTAN)

Project Director

Professor Syed Nawab Raider NaqviDirector, PIDE

Project Manager

Dr. Mohammad IrfanChief of Research (Economics)

Project Team Members

1. Dr. Iqbal Alam, Chief of Research (Demography)

2, Mr. M. Naseem Iqbal Farooqui, Research Demographer

3. Mrs. Naushin Mahmood Qureshi, Research Demographer

4. Miss Nasreen Abbasi Research Demographer

5, Mr. Ghulam Yasin Soomro Research Demographer

6. Miss Zubeda Khan, Research Demographer

7. Miss Talat K. Alauddin, Research Economist

8. Mr. S. Mubashir All, Staff Demographer

9. Mr. H. B. Siyal, Staff Demographer

10. Mr. Khalid Hameed Sheikh, Staff Demographer

11. Mr. Ghulam Mohammad Arif, Associate Staff Economist

12. Mr. M. Javed Tariq, Associate Staff Economist

13. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Zahid, Associate Staff Demographer

14. Miss Rashida 1-Iaq, Associate Staff Economist

15. Mr. Zafar Mucen Nasir, Associate Staff Economist

16. Mr. Sharlf-ul-Haq Grewal, Research Assistant

17. Mr. Mohammad Rafiq , Senior Computer Programmer

18. Mr. Mohammad Khalid, Senior Computer Programmer

19. Mr. Furqan Ahmed Farooqui, Computer Programmer

20. Syed Tariq Ahmed, Computer Programmer

21. Mr. Masood Ashfaque 7 Computer Programmer

22. Mr. Javed Akbar Gil, Computer Programmer

PREFACE

The need for 'endogen.izing'. demographic variables in development

planning is now widely recognized..The planners have to-spread-their

analytical net wider to capture ,in one 'go' both the demographic and

socio-economic variables, This requires an explicit recognition of the

two-way .ink between changes in fertility on the one hand and those in

labour markct,.wages, income distribution, consumption j savings, investment

and other vhriablcson the other. The research work done so far in Pakistan

has inadequately addressed itself to this two-way linkage between demographic

and socio-economic phenomena, Researchers, constrained by limitations of

both data and analytical framework, have tendd.to study the demographic

phenomenon of fertility in isolation from such related maters as labour

force participation, rural-urban migration and income and expendituie

patterns. These studies have failed to analyse simultaneously the

demographic, production and consumption decisions of households, For

tnatance, high fertility rates are generally attributed to biological

determinants alone which can be influenced by large supplies of such

clinical devices as contraceptives, Such notions about the fertility

behaviour of the households have given birth to ineffective government

policies. That the many population planning adventures, taking mostly

the form of crash programmes, undertaken so far have foundered should not

surprise anyone Fertility, like love that sustains it, is a many-

splendoured thing. It must be seen in a broader socio-economic context.

• The nature of the influences of economic forccs,both direct and

indirect, on fertility behaviour should therefore Constitute a major area

of. concern for social scientists and policy makers. To make a start in

.1this direction, the inter-linkages between such variables as fertility, labour

force participation and migration and their effects on the household income and

expenditureT bh lid ir .i hs üdicdYSuchà 1rhbiil'd pe'rnft iii toundständ better the tide sthn-mak'ih prbcsbf , the htLs .ehldiwhiChLis the

basiènit 'in: -both ^-t d ogph.ic -studies of

this genre have already been carried out in many other developing countries

and have provided gainful insights into th determinants of household

economic-demographic behaviour.. rlowever, in Pakistan th present exercise

is the first of its kind.. I

In 6iderunders tand .better the economic-demographic interace the

öje.t entitled "Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration" has been

undertakeri :by thePakitànInstitutcof Development Economics in collaboration

with the'ILO and UNFPA. The prdect is a 'four-in-one' venture bsed on a

ziinatioul sampl the field-wofk .f or which was undertaken by the Sttstics

Division , (forrnerly called Central Statistical Office, or C$Ofr shor)

coveri,nglQ,88 households. The ,survey generated a:;wealth of .dataon:the

houehold- dècision-inaking process concerning the- behayiour of 'the connected

four!omv1Z. fertility,'.migraton,labour force. participation and income

and expenditure. Every effort has been made to ensure reli ability . q,frthe data.

This study, which is being brought out in the form of a series of seven 'first'

reports, would enhance our understanding of the behaviour.of households with

.1

respeèt to the' various ways in which they go about fulfilling their 'basic

needs EvenEven more important, it should lay the foundations of economic

aethbgraph) in Pakistan, opning up new areas of multi-disciplinary' research

that could not be perceived before. This study should also provide the

researcher with a sufficient-feel for the real world to permit formal economic-

demographic modelling exercises. In this respect the present reports are truly

pioneering both in intent and in purpose.

Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi

I..-

SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THEPOPULATION IN PAKISTAN: FINDINGS OF THE POPULATION,

LABOUR FORCE AND MIGRATION SURVEY 1979-80

Introduction:

A profile, of the socio-economic and demographic characteristics

of the population is undisputably a necessity for planning, accounting,

housing, education and other innumerable purposes. So far Pakistan's

stock of such data is based on four Population Censuses (1951, 1961, 1972

and 1981) and several national surveys (PGE 1963-65, PGS 1968-71 &

1976-78, NIS 1968, PFS 1975, HED 1973, HIES 1971_72, LFS 1974-75 & 1978-79).

Ofcourse supplementary information is also available for some cities

such as Rawalpindi (Babar 1977) and Karachi (Hashmi 1963) but its value

is limited in terms of describing national characteristics. In theory

the censuses have complete coverage of the population but due to the limited

number of questions included in census schedules they suffer from lack

of detail. On the-other hand the surveys cited above, cover only a sample,

supposedly representative on a national basis, but because of their sma-

ller size are able to include many more questions than census schedules.

Together the two sets of sources provide us with information on population

size, density, breakdown by provinces and urban-rural residence, age and

sex structure, housing, labour force and educational characteristics. The

Population, Labour Force and Migration Survey 1979-80, (PLM) is another

such most recent exercise, conducted by PIDE/ILO in 1979-80 with funds

from the UNFPA. It is however, uniquely rich due to tfle information

collected through detailed questionnaires comprised by the tour modules

-2-

on Labour Force, Income and Expenditure, Migration and Fertility. The

interlinkages between the modules lead to extensive information at the

household level. It must be highlighted that the PLM is a pioneering

venture in the history of data collection in Pakistan because the un-

kage between the standard Labour Force Survey and Household Income and

Expenditure Schedule with a Fertility and a Migration survey ?rovide a very

comprehensive picture of household social, economic and demographic be-

haviour. Previuosly, data were available for individuals (censuses) or

for women (PFS 1975, NIS 1968) and the Labour Force and Income and Ex-

penditure Surveys by themselves were rather scanty in their household

level.information about areas other than labour force or income and ex-

penditure. This attempt at linking four modules fits in well with the

established consensus in recent years that an inter-disciplinary app-

roach was necessary to analyze household behaviour more meaningfully.

Sample Description:

The distribution of households sampled is given below in Table

1 however, out of the 11288 households in the sample only 10244 were act-

ually enumerated, the remainder consisted of households whore there was

no . response. The sampling was done on the basis of the 1972 census samp-

ling frame, adjusted for the estimated population in 1979-80. Howavor,

the rural-urban distribution did not match with t one found in the

sus. The urban population was infact oversampled and consequently "rai-

sing factors" need to be used when national estimates are derived from

the sample. The 10244 households actually enumerated, were administered,

-3-Table: 1

NUMERICAL AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION :OF THE SAMPLED

HOUSEHOLDS IN PAKISTAN AND ITS PROVINCES BY URBAN-RURAL A!EAS

Areas SAMPLED HOUSEHOLD

Urban Rural Total

Pakistan 4613 6675 11288

(40.9) (59.1) (100)

2388 4087

(36.9) (63.1)

1425 1200

(54.3) (45.7)

6475(57.4)

2625(23.2)

Punjab

Sind

NWFP 500 875 1375

(36.4) (63.6) (12.2)

Baluchistan 300 513 813

(36.9) (63.1) ( 7.2)

Source: PLM Survey 1979-80

the Labour Force Survey and the Household, Income and Expenditure Survey

during the last two quarters of 1979, whereas the Miqrationafld Fertility

modules were completed from September 1979 to April 1980.-Households

containing women eligible for the fertility survey (i.e ever-married women

aged 50 and less) were selected on the basis of households included in

the Migration survey. Some details on selection are presented later in

the paper, however, only 8397 households were covered for the Fertility

- module.

Scope of Survey: - -

As pointed out before, out of the four schedules comprising the PLM,

two were identical to the ones used by the Central Statistical Office (CSO

to collect information annually on the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and on

Household Income and Expenditure (HIES). Although their function is to

-4-

collect time series data, which is annually comparable, the last Labour

Force Survey had been conducted in 1974-75and the last Income and Expen-

diture Survey in 1971-72. Despite the lamentable gap in the time sexies,

it is still qiit&fothnate that thetwoschedules-ara comparable with

data from past periods. Similarly, the Fertility Schedule was identical to

the one administered under the Pakistan Fertility Survey of 1975 and thus

trends in fertility and related characteristics are directly comparable

from 1975 to five years latar. The miaration questionnaire is not compa-

rable with any other survey. The schedule was especially dosignd for the

PLM with separate components for non-migrants, potential migrants, in-mig-

rants, out-migrants and return-migrants. The data thus collected are

unique as such detailed national level information on migrants has been

unavailable so far. Particularly th possibility of matching all four

schedules allows us mor information on fertility of migrants, of incoxmu

and expenditure behaviour of migrants etc.

It is our intention to provide an overview of tho findings from the

four schedules. No multivariate analysis has been carried out, and th

report is by and large a descriptive piece of work. However, in places

figures from the PLM have been supplemented by data from comparable sources.

This report is organized into eight sections, dealing with age and sex

structure, household structure, marital structure, education, labour force,

income and expenditure, migration and finally, fertility behaviour.

Age and Sex Structure:

The age and sex composition of a survey population is the first item

examined in this report. If the sample is, as in this case, thought to be

nationally representative, then it gives us an idea of the structure of

-5-

Table 2: Age and Sex Distribution of the Survey

• SPopulation as Compared with the 1981 Census

AgePL" SI!"FV 1°S1 Cersus

Group Sex Male Female Sex Male FemaleRatio Ratio

0-4 106.1 15.8 16.3 95.7 14.3, 16.5

5-9 109.8 17.0 17.0 108.0 15.8 . 16.2

10-14 114.0. 12.9 12.2 120.4 13.7 12.6..

15-19 115.3 9.6 9.1 119.6 9.3 9.0

20-24 93.9 7.0 8.2 104.9 7.6 8.0

25-29 100.1 6.2 6.7 112.7 6.7 6.6

30-34 100.5 5.2 5.7 107.2 5.5 5.7

35-39 - . 105.6 4.7 4.9 102.1 4.9 5.3

40-44 105.7 4.2 4.4 100.7 4.5 4.9

45-49 105.5 4.0 4.1 110.3 3.7 3.7

50+ 129.7 13.5 . 11.4 130.0 13.4 11.4

Source: PLM Survey (Migration module); Census of Pakistan1981.

Note: Rounding of percentages to the nearest decimalplace lead to their not adding upto 100 percent.

the Pakistan population, Age-sex data from the PLr1 ought also to be fairly

comparable to population data colicctd in the 1981 Census Table 2 pre-

sents the results for both sources.

The .ae . ,n sex distribution from the sample survey and th Census

is s1ight1ydice"nt:in the PLM a higher - proportion of the population is

under 15 as compared to the Census. The differences appear more so in

the sex distribution of the two populations. Whereas the Census finds a

deficit of males in the 0-4 category, this is not the case for the PLM

figures. The findings of the 1981 Census are puzzling since it is only

at ages less than one year that male mortality is higher than female more-

tality and after age 1 the pattern by sex is reversed Lln and Cleland, 19847..So a relative deficit of male children may be due to distortions--' in age

reporting. On the other hand, the PLM contains an excess of women in the

20-24 age group, which may be due to excessive mole migratiox in that

group. However, the Census shows no such irregularity. Generally, apart

from these two exceptions, there are more men than women in all the brood

5 year age groups because of lower male mortality. However, this excess

is greatest in the 50+ age where both in the Census and the PLM there is

an almost' 30 erànt'ee' of males. W sx Tti'o's also quite high

for the 10-14 and 15-19 groups.

' table 3 conthins the age-sex distribUtions for urban-rural areas. It

is interesting to note that the deficit of males in the 20-24 group, noted

in the aggregate table for all Pakistan, is quite sharp in rural areas

and is accompanied by a fairly high sex ratio in urban areas. This may

reflect rural-urban and rural to out-migration. A slight deficit of males

Table 3: PERCE1TAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY POPULATION B y AGE ANDSEX FOR URBAN AND RURAL AREAS

RURAL SURBAN

Age Both Sex Sex Ratio* Both Sex Sex Ratio

Groups Sexes Male Female Ratio (Labour Force) sexes Male. Female Ratio (Labour Force)

16.1 13.7 105.9 102.3 15.1 15.0 15.2 108.8 104.2

17.4 17.2 110.3 105.5 16.1 16.0 16.2 108.5 ' 105.5

12.6 12.0 111.9 113.1 13.6 13.7 13.4 111.9 108.7

9.1 9.4 118.8 114.8 10.9 10.9 11.0 108.3 105.9

6.4 0.1 87.3 85.7 8.6 8.6 8.5 110.5 109.2

6.2 6.7 100.8 100.3 6.4 6.1 6.8 98.3 98.7

5.3 C.8 99.9 :96.4 5.1 4.9 5.3 102.0 100.4

4.7 4.9 104.4 105.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 109.5 110.1

4.3 4.4 106.6 102.8 4.2 1 4.3 1034 104.1

4.0 3.2 103.3 98.4 3.9 4.0 3.9 111.7 110.6

3.8 2.9 147.4 142.5 3.2 3.6 2.3 140.2 140.0

2.3 2.9 87.6 91.2 2.6 2.7 2.4 120.3 122.3

3.2 2..3 151.4 147.4 2.3 25: 2.0 - 135.6 129.4

4.7 3.6 141.5 131.6 3.3 3.2 3.3 106.4 101.2

100 100 109.7 106.3. -. 100.0 100.6 100.0 109.4 107.4

Source: PLM Survey (Migration module)

*The see. ratios deived from the Labour Force module which alsocomprises Age- sex structure breakdown 'is included as it confirnsthe compositional patterns depicted by the Migration module of thePLM which differ quite substantially from the 1981 Census (Table 2)

0-4

16.45-,9

17.310-14

12.315-19

8.720-24

7.2

25-29

6.4

30-34

5.635-39

4.840-4/445-49

4.150-54

3.455-59

2.660-64

2.865+

All

100

-8-

is noted, however, in the urban artas thcnselves in the 25-29 group and

may congruously r;eflect substantial external migration of nvilcs at these

ages.

Household Structure:

As pointed out in the introduction, the unit on the basis of which

information was collected in the PLM was the household. Usually the defi-

nition' of household is "a single person living alone or group of persons

who normally live and eat together" /HUES 19797. 'However the living

situation varies enourmously accross cultures and it is at time difficult

to discern betwen those persons sharing a roof but who do not ven eat

together (a boarding house) with an extended family living on street

pavement.. The examples are rather extreme but are included to highlight

the problems of defining a household and accordingly to be aware of -

differences in household size which may result. -

Table ,4 contains average household size as calculated by previous

surveys, alongwitl- the PLM, for all Pakistan and for urban and rural areas

separately. The PLM has the same average household size of 6.3: as the

PFS 1975. Also dverage households are larger in. urban areas than in rural

areas This differential is also found in all the three sources cited in

-.the table. It has been 'found that other Asian countries also record this

pattern of higher average household size in urban areas and in 'a cross-

national study this finding was attributed to the larger presence of non-

family members, i.e., relative and domestic servants and thb shortage of

housing in urban areas LKbir, 1980/. As alrcidy pointed.out, the cultural

set up in urban and rural areas may differ also leading to a large discre-

pancy in the app]Iicability of definition of what contitutes a household.

-9-

Table: 4

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR PAKISTAN, URBAN AND RURAL AREAS FORPLM 1979, PFS 1975, NED 1973 AND PGS 1976

AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZESurvey - Pakistan Urban Rural

HED 1973 5.4 5.7 5.3PFS 1975* 6.3 6.5 6.2PGS 1976 6.0 6.6 5.8PLM 1979-80 6.3 6.6 6.1

Source: ED 1973,.PFS 1975, PCS 1976, Pi! (higration 1iodula)* The estimatQb era based an the cijura pcouiatiun.

In rural nras of Pakistan, fa:tilies cluster together in dwellings

close to one nthor - most neighbours are kinsmen and porhes smallor

households arise out of the fact that th wh1e neighbourhood hous the

clan but eating and working revolves around the nuclear faaiily. In uban

areas this is not the case as tno clan breaks down and if relatives do

decide to live together ( .as in th case of axtnded. faaiily) they have to

move into the same house, flat etc. Boundaries or physical constraints, may

be mor, c1ar1y defined in urban areas and therefore servants and relatives

living, in the same vicinity are more, likely to be defined as living in

the same household whereas in rural areas they may be located nearby but

not within the same boundary wall.

However, there are counter arguments that could be put forward suppor-

ting the fact that there are real' differences in household size or in family

size in urban and rural areas. One of the arguments is that those living

in urban areas are- more likely to live in nuclear households. These house-w

holds lead to further privacy of the married couple and increased frequency

of intercourse would enhance family size. This has been reported earlier

-10-.

in a study based on the National Impa Svey LKerim 1974/. Marital

fertility has also been noted to be higher in urban areas in Pakistan

/Sathar 19797 4 lso mortality-in urban areas is substantially lower than

in rural areas and would lead to greater survivorship of household mem-

bers LAlam and Cleland 19847..

The PLM finds that most (64%) households are classified as

nuci-e-ar- in Pakistan. The PLi1 also found that a greater proportion of nu-

clear households were located in rural areas (64.4%) than in urban areas

(58.3%). This seems anamolous with regard to the modernization argument.

Also if shifts were taking place towards nuclearization of families should

this not be happening more in urban areas? However, with respect to our

own argument that to live together families need to share the same house-

hold or boundaries of a house more so in urban than in rural areas - the

evidence confirms that there is a greater proportion of joint and extended

families in urban areas (41.7%) whereas in rural areas the corresponding

proportion is (35.6). The metropolitan areas lie in between with a

larger share than urban areas of nuclear households but lower than the

proportion observed in rural areas. This pattern of differentials in

nuclear versus extended and joint households, as seen in Table 5, occurs

across provinces of Sind and Punjab (in NWFP and BalucFtan, there are no

metropolitan areas).

Another aspect of households which is of interest is the gender of

the head particularly as house headship in Pakistan is likely to be a male

responsibility and only exceptional circumstances would lead to a woman

taking it over. Table 6 shows a slightly higher proportion of female

heads exist in rural areas; amongst the provinces, rWFP has the highest

-11-

Table 5

Percentage Distribution of nouseholds by FamilyType and Area of Residence S

TYPE OF FAMILYArea

Nuclear Extendedb - JointcTotal

Pakistan 63.8 30.6 5.6 100.0

Metropolitan '- 63.4 32.5 4.1.13.4

Urban 58.3 35.4 613 14.0

Rural 64.4 29..7 5.9 72.6

Punjab 62.2 31.7 6.1 i00.0

Metropolitan 60.7 34.1 5.2 9.7

Urban 58.7 349 6.4 l'i

Rural 62.9 30:9 6.2 75.5

Sind 65.1 29.7 5.2 100.0

Metropolitan 65.7 311 3.2 31.0

Urban 60.3 31.1 8.6 10.2

Rural 66.3 200 5.7 So.d

29.8 5.0 100.0flflA

MetropolitanUrbanRural

Baluchistan

i.ietropolitanUrbanRural

59.4 37•.4 3.2

663 4bJ 54

73.2 22.5 4.3

59.7 35.575.7 20.1 4.2

lo.683.4

100.0

17.7..

Source: PLM Survey ( Migration module )

a. Nuclear family comprises of a couple or one parent with or without

their un-married children.

b. Extended family consists of a couple with their ir'.ied ciii1den

including daughter-in-law. -

c. Joint family consists of all the remaining categories of the

households. Domestic servants are excluded.

-12-

proportion of female household heads which must reflect heavy out-migra-

tion from these areas. The corresponding proportions are very slight in

Sins and Baluchistan.

Table: 6

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD, BY GENDERAND AREAS OF RESIDENCE

Areas Male Female

PakistanUrbanRural

PunjabUrbanRural

SindUrbanRural

NWFPUrbanRural

BaluchistanUrbanRural

94.3

5.7

95.3

4.7

94.0

6.1

93. 7

94.2

5.8

93.6

6.4

98.1

1.9

96.9

3.2

99.1

0.9

89.2

10.8

94.0

6.1

88.3

11.7

97.4

2.6

99.4

0.6

97.0

3.0

Source: PLM Survey (Labour Force Module)

Marital Structura:

One of the most crucial demographic paraieters inasocity is the

marital structure. Especially in Pakistan where all child-bearing occurs

within marriage, it is critical tc kn04 how many married men and women there

are, and what is the initial age and consequont tempo of marriage.

detailed study on nuptiality has been done using PLt1 data (Naushin. Mahrnood

-13-

and Mubashjr 1983), however, it relied mainly on data from the fertility

questionnaire dealing only with ever-married women of re productive ages

for most of the analysis Here we utilize the data from the Migration

survey on marital status' of àllhousehbid members. Also we present

figures for men and women whereas the abOve mentioned report relied mostly

onnuptiality data. for females.'

Table 7 refers only to females but presents a comparison of the

distribution by marital status and 5 yothr age groups. The lIED 1973 and

PLM distributions are very similar whereas the PFS 1975 has a much lower

proportion of women who are single in the age groups 15-19 (i,e. 62 per-

cent compared to 72 percent of the PLM and lIED). Were the lIED not similar

to;the PLM pattern it could have been concluded that differences in the

prQportion married at 15-19 shows a rising age at marriage. However, we

now have to be more weary of data inaccuracies. Especially since the MED

1973 figures are much lower than both the other sources, we are inclined

to leave aside the MED figures and rely more on. the comparison between

PFS and PLM particularly since their methodology is similar and this

- sügests some genuine changes in nuptiality.

Table: 7

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FEMALE' POPULATION El MARITALSTATUS FOR HED 1973, PFS 1975 AND PLM 1979-80

Age lIED 1973 PFS 1975 PL' 1979-90 - -Groups Single Married Widowod/ Single harried idied/ 3inqi L .ia)-ric2d !idowcd/

Divorced Divorced Divorced

1014 99 1 0 99 1 0 99 1 015-19 72 28 0 62 38 0 72 28. 020-24 25 73 2 22 77 1 23 75 225-29 ' 6 92 2 9 89 2 6 92 230-34 3 94 3 ' 3 94 3 3 95 235-39 2 95 3 2 93 5 2 94 440-44 2 92 6 1 90 9 I 93 645-49 1 91 8 1 86 13 1 92 750+ 2 66 32 1 57 42 1 64 35All 32 61 7 33 58 9 32 60 8Source: HIED 1973, PFS 1975, PLM (Migration Module)Note: For the sake of comparison separated women have been included in the

category of married women.

- -14-

Another comparison is made in Table 9 of proportions ever-married

as reported in the PLM and in the 1981 Census for males as well as females.

It is confirmed that the marriage rate for males is much lower than that

for females in Pakistan. The patterns of marriage reported in the 1981are

Census and the PLM/very similar - whereas Only 35 percent of men are

married at ages 20-24, the corresponding proportion for women is more than

twice as high. Although differences across the two sources are marginal

it is interesting to note that the Census proportions of ever-married males

are slightly higher for younger ages whereas the converse pattern is depic-

ted for females. Taken at face value, these figures imply a slight fall

in the age at marriage for males and a corresponding rise in the age at

marriage for females which would of course fit in well with the secular

rises in the age at marriage reported elsewhere (Mahinood and Nubashir

1983, Karim 1980).

Tab1 8

PROPORTIONS EVER-MARRIED BY SEX FROM THE SURVEY POPULATIONAND THE CENSUS 1981

- MALES - FEMALES

Age groups PLM 1981 Census PLM 1981 Census

10-14' - - .01 -

15-19 .05 .03 .20 .2920-24 .34 .36 .77 .12

25-29 .69 .E' .4 .91

30-34 .39 .36 .98 .96

35-39 .9.. .94 .99 .98

40-44 .97 .6 .99 .98

45-69 .98 .97

50-54 .99 ..97 .99 .9?

55-59 .98 .98 .99 .99

60+ .98 .97 .93 .97

Source: PLM (Migration Module), Population Census 1981.

-13-

Educational -Structure---:

- Eduati 1aimed to be one of the poorest pdrformance ectors

in Pak•istan. Th? meagre expenditure allocated to it by the Government,

alonqwith the massive expansion of the school going populationhas lcd

to no marked improvements in the proportion of persons literate over the

years. However, literacy levels can vary according to definitions used

(Mahmood 1978). In this section we will describe the population classi-

fied by age and sex according to their , lovels of educational attainment.

The figures shown in Table 9 are distressing: by ages 5-9, 35%. of boys

and only 18 percent of girls had attended school. The disparities in edu-

cational attainment become more accute with a ge. For instance, for the

-age group 15-19, 59 percent boys had some schooling and about- 1 -1 percent

had more than primary schooling - the corrspondiñg figures for girls were

-29 percent and 24 percent. However, at age 30-33-, 42 percent males had had

some schooling whereas only .12 percent of females had attended school in

that age-group. Looking at overall totals, 64 percent of males had no edu-

-cation while 2.6 percent had-more than 12 years schooling. Correspondingly

.for females the proportions were 85 percent and O-. percent resectively.-

-Thus not only are overall educational achievements level low in Pakistan but

females suffer exceedingly lower levels of attainment; There is evidence

that inequalities in educational attainment across the sexes are impro-

ving some.what. Also evidence exists that higher percentages of both sexes

are receiving education over the years as can be seen by the lesser pro-

.porticns of uneducated younger persons. Apart from the glaring sex

differentials in education, which are based mainly on demand considerations

such as lower emphasis on educating girls due to the unlikelihood of their

-16-

Table 9: Percentage Distribution of the Survey Population byAge sex and Education level

PAKISTAN

Age No YEARS OF SCHOOLINGgroup - schooling 1-4 5 6-9 10-11 12+ - Total

0-4 99.6 04- Male - - - 15.6

5-9 65.8 34.2 - - - - 17.010-14 37.2 28.1 14.0 19.1 - - 12.915-19 41.0 6.5 8.0 30.4 11.8 2.6 9.620-24 45.1 6.1 8.9 16.6 14.6 8.7 7.025-29 47.6 5,2 8.9 12.6 8.5 6;5 6.230-34 57.8 6.8 9.6 10.6 8.2 7.1 5.235-39 58.0 8.0 8.5 11.1 8.0 5.5 4.740-44 65.2 5.4 . 7.4 11.1 6.9 4.1 4.245-49 67.7 7.4 7.2 8.3 6.0 3.4 4.050-54 73.4 6.0 7.2 7.6 4.3 1.7 3.855-59 72.0 6.0 6.0 8.0 5.6 2.4 2.460-64 81.4 4.5 5.1 5.9 2.1 0.9 3.06+ 82.1 5.4 3.5 5.1 3.0 0.9 4.3All 63.6 12.9 6.2 10.2 4.6 2.6 100.0

Female

0-4. 99.6

0.3

J6. 35-9

82.2

17.8 17.010-14

69.1

15.2

6.6

9.2

12.215-19

70.9

3.8

62

10.8

6.3

2.0

9.120-24

78.0 .2.4

6.6

4.7 '-1. 4

4.0

8.225-29

84.9

2.2

3.5 ,. 2 3.1

2.2

6.730-34

87.7

2.0

3.4

2.8

2.3

1.8

5.735-39

89.4

2.2

2.5

3.3

1.8

0.8

4.940-44

91.3

1.8

2.4

2.7

1.0

0.8

4.445-49

93.5

1.2

2.1

2.1

0.7

0.4

4.150-54

95.2

1.7

1.3

0.7

0.6

0.' 2.855-59

96.9

1.0

0.7

1.0

0.2

0.2

2.860-64

95.9

1.2

1.3

1.0

0.5

0.1

2.265+

98.5

0.5

0.7

0.3

0.1

0.0

3.5All

85.4

6.0

2.8

3.4

1.5

0.9

100.0

Both Sexes

0-4

99.6

0.4

16.05-9

74.4

25.6

17.010-14

52.1

23.0

10.5

14.5

12.615-19

54.9

5.2

7.2

21.3

9.2

2.3

9.320-24

62.0

4.2

7.7

10.5

9.4

6.3

7.625-29

68.2

3.9

6.8

8.9

6.5

5.5

6.30-34

72.2

4.4

6.5

6.7

5.635-39

73.2

4.9

5.3

7.8

5.0

3.2

4.840-44

77.9

3.6

4.9

7.0 11.0

2.5

4.345-,49

80.3

4.4 4.8

5.2 3.4

2.0 4.050-54

82.3

4.2

4.8

4.8

2.8

1.2

3.355-59

84.7

3.4

3.3 '4.4

2.9

1.3

2.660-64

87.3

3.1

3.6

3.9

1.5

0.6

2.765+

89.1

3.3

2.3

3.0

1.7

0.5

3.9All

74.0

9.6

4.6

6.9

3.2

1.8

100.0

Source: PLM Survey, ( Migration module).

—'17-

seeking employment, the differentials

most'larely, though riot eitire'ly 1sed on supply constraints. Schools,

college and universities are easier td sot up in urban areas and funds

both public and private are diverted there. Table 10 presents the aggre-

gate bekdown of the survey population with some schooling for urban

and rural areas, the four provinces and for males and females (detailed

tables disaggregated by 5 ydar age groups are presented in the Appendix).

The data shows that educational attendance is much greater in urban. areas

than in rural areas and the disparities by sex are also greatar in, rural

areas. Across provinces, Sind had the highest educational, attainment

for both sexes whereas NWFP and Baluchistan havo appallingly low 'levels

of female edcatjonal attainment. -

Table: 10

PROPORTIONS WITH SOME EDUCATIONAL TRAINING BY AREA OF RESIDENCE

(Percentagc)

Aras offlesidorice ' ' Halo Female Ioth Sxos

Urban 52.8 32.3 44.9

Rural 22.9 2.2 19.57

Punjab

37..8

15.9

26.3

Sind''

35.5

14.3

29.0

NWFP

34,8

4.5

14.7

Baluchistan

2.0

8.3

22.0

Source: PLM-Survey (Migration Module) , '

-18-

Labour Force Participation:

The Labour Force Surveys standard schedule provides data on par-

ticipation in the work force for all persons aged 10 and above. The

questionnability of the definition of work used has been discussed else-

where /Shah and Sathar 19787. But it is essential to point out that this

may be a consideration when interpreting labour force participation rates,

particularly in the case of females as their work rates appear to be

exceedingly low in Pakistan. Table 11 gives the detailed breakdown of

labour force participation rates by sex and urban-rural residence. Most

men partiiptte in the labour force after the age of 25 and rates begin

to taper offonly after the official retirement ago between 55 and 60.

Even at ages 65 and above more than half of all men work. This is not

the case for females where labour force participation rates do not exceed

17 percent for any age group and are generally around 12 percent. The

female labour force participation rates are even lower in urban areas

(at around 6 percent) and slightly higher than the national average in

rural areas at about 16 percent. Labour force participation rates for males

are about the same in rural and urban areas except more boys aged 10-19

work in the rural areas. Also the attrition rate is faster in urban areas

whereas in rural areas, men continue working longer.

Apart from aggregated data on participation in the labour force,

the module on labour force provides details of employment of heads of

households and other members of the household. Characteristics of workers

such as their employment status (whether they are employees, employers,

unpaid workers etc.), their occupation and industry and numbr of hours

worked were asked in the Labour Force Schedule. This information allows

Table 11: Age and Sex Specific Labour Force Participation Ratein the Survey Popü1atori

Age group Male Female Both sexes

PAKISTAN

10-14 36.8 10.1 24.215-19 67.7 12.1 21.420-24 88.9 14.4 50825-29 95.8 13.7 54.030-34 97.0 .. 17.0 56.935-39 97.5 14.5 56.840-44 96.4 15.5 56.345.49 96.9 16.2 57.750-54 93.3 . 1.6 60.055-59 91.4 11.7 51.260-64 ., 80.4 9.3 50.665++ 54.0 5.7 32.4Total 76.7 12.9 46.0

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-54.55-5960-64.65+Total

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465+Total

URBAN

2.0: 44

6.46.26;86.67.27.68.05.53.63.95.2

RURAL

13.616.017.816.620.517.418.519.417.113.611.16.416.0

10.729,045.250.651.454.452.654.157.50.843.527,238.4

29.947.453.555.458.857.857.8.59.061.251.852.734.049.0

18.652.180.995.595.797.7

96..192.688.74.250.169.0

44.475.093.095.997.597.496.697.093.692.782.255.079.8

Source: PLM Survey ( Labour Force module

- -20-

for many possible ross-classificationsof members of the labour force,

Such analyses are essential frgrn the- piDint of view of educational and

manpwr pla-nning to see where our labour -force is engaged, what quali-

fications are -needed for that occupation, what is the occupational dist-

tribution in a particular industry and what are the ratio of self-employed,

employees and .employers. -

One example of such cross-tabulations is included in Table 12 where

the distribution of employed persons (of 10 years and above) are cross-

tabulated by their employment status, their occupation group and by area

of residence. In. the country as a whole most of the population is engaged

in agriculture, animal husbandry, forestry (55%.) and in rural areas this

proportion is even higher (70%). In urban areas the majority of workers

are in the production and transport sector followed by those engaged , in

sales work. Whereas in rural areas most workers are self-employed or un-

paid family helpers, the majority in urban areas are employees. In general

those in professional technical and related services, clerical and -

managerial professions are employed both in rural and urban areas whereas

a majority of sales workers and agricultural workers are self-employed

or unpaid family helpers. In the case of production and transport opera-

tors, the combination of self-employed and employees are predominant in

both urban and rural areas. Generally speaking, those patterns of employ-

ment do not differ as much by area as do those of occupational distribution

by rural and urban areas.

1.

V

I I

Ma )16 12: Distribution of Persons Aged 10 Years -and above,above, by major occupational Groups

And Type of Employment

PAISTAN RURAL URBANTotal Emnloyer Self- Unpaid Employ- Total Emplo- Self- Unpaid Employ- Total mplo Self Unpaid mploy-

employ- Family ed yer emplo- family ee yer emloy .. fani11ee

ed helper .. .. yehe1er . ed helper

Total 100.0 2.0 41.2 29.7 27.1 100.0 2.0 a. 2 35.3

19.6 100.0 2.1 3 .4.-4 11

Professional, Techni-- 2.6 1.fl 18.2 2.4 78.4 1.8 0.9 19.4 33 76. 6.1 1.0 15.2 1.3 79.5cal and related workers

Managerial workers 0.8 17.9 20.5 6.6 55.0 0.2 35.0 8.8 - 56.2 3.0 1,4.1. 23 'B .l 5 7

Clerical and relatedworkers 2.9 0.2 1.7 0.6 97.5 1.2 0.8 2.2 0.6 96.' 8.6 . , 1.5 6.6 97.9

Sales workers 93 2.3 71.8 16.4 94 53 0.7 80.7 13.7 4.9 22.6 3.6 61.9 18.6 12.9Service. Workers 4.3 0.9. 29.0 . 9.3 60.7 2.8 .0.6 35.9 9.7 53.8 . 9.1 1.26 21.9 8.9 67.9Agriculture, Animal 55.1 2.4 41.9 44.8 108 70.0 41.8 45.2 10.6 5.6 3.6 3.3 30.7 22.5husbandary forestry wor].ersFisherman etc.

Production and Transport 24.8 0.9 33.'l 11.8 49.3 18.-7 0 7 43.9 13.'8 . '41.6 45.1 1.1 29.9 9.0 59.9equipment operators etc. .

Workers not clas4ifjabieDy Occupation

-22-

Household Income and Expenditure:

The Household Income and Expenditure module of the PLM was identical

to that, for which the report has been published by the CSO /HIES 1979/.

The difference is that the PLM income and expenditure component contains

data from two quarters whereas the rain HIES was done over all four quar-

ters. However, it is thought that data from two quarters is as repesen-

tative of annual estimates.

We include here in Table 13 the monthly houshold income, distribution

by rural and urban areas. The proportion of huusGholds in the lower

income groups is higher in rural areas than in urban areas; this also

applies to the proportion of thepopulation. Of the various income groups,

most monthly incomes fall otween 600 and 1500 ru in rural arc-,as anu

between 80d and 2000 rupees in urban areas. Only 6.8 percurit of the total

monthly incomes reported in rural areas werL above 3501 rups

in urban aras 22.1 percent of households fall in that rangc.

Table 14 presents the beakdown of the average of number of carriers,

the percentae of earners that are not household heads and average income

controlled b4 income groups. There scorns to be a larger number of ear- -, -

ners overall in rural than in urban areas. Also this number 's increases

with income i4 both areas. Thus additional earning members lead to an

enhancement oi monthly household income and congruously with .increase- ifl -

income, the proportion ofearners cQmprising household heads diminishes.

However, the head of household contributes a very large share of the monthly

income in all income groups but pa.rticulaly among the poorer households.,

Table; 13

DISTRIBUTION OF MONTHLY INCOME AMONG HOUSEWLDS AND SURVEYPOPULATION BY INCOME GROUPS

Monthly RURAL AREAS URBAN AREASIncome Groups Households PopulationMonthi.y Housho1ds Population Monthly(in rupees) Income Income

Upto 300 5.1 '2.6 1.5 1.8 0.7 0.3

301-400 9.0 6.0 3.8 4.0 2.1 1.1

401-500 12.3 9.5 6.7 7.2 4.7 2.5

501-600 14:0 12.0 9;2' 6.5 3.5

601-800 Q2.7 22.5 189 17.0 14.7 9.0

801-1000 14. 16.7 15.5 15.8 15.4 10.7

1301-1500 11.7 18.5 21.0 22.2 25.1 20.5

1501-2000 4.3 6.2 8.7 10.0 l2.8 12.9

2001-2500 17 2.7 4.6 4.9 6. -3: 8.2

2501-3003 0.6 1.1 1.9 2.5 3.3 5.2

3001-3500 .4 .7 1.5 1.7 4.2

3501 and above 0.9 1.6 6.8 4.4 6.1 22.1

Source: Household Income and Expenditure Survey, Federal Bureau ofStatistic, Government of Pakistan, 1979. -

Table 14: -•Distriution of Moth .ly Incomeby Type ofEarners and Income Groups

Average no. of Distribution of Earners by 'Headhjp Status Average Income ContribtdiiAll Garners per RUR,L . URBAN RURAL URBANgroups household Head of Non-head Head of ion-head Head of Nonhed Head of Non-head

Rural Urban househol( household Household household household household household household

All groups 2.0 1.7 '.50.5 49.5 .58.3 41.7 730.97 104.68

109.24 316.67

Up to 300 1.3 1.1 7.1 21.9 89.8 10.2 230.07: 10.84 226.89 11.33301400 1.4 - 1.1 72.5 27.5 92.9 7.1 336.99 18.26 '340.87 23.08401-500 1.6 1.2 64.3 35.7 86.0 , 14.0 424.09 -29.66 ' '431.94 ' 3159501-600 1.7 1.3 57.5 42.5 79.5 20.5 507.05 44.95 '503.14 5672601-800 2.0 1.5 50.7 49.3 '68.9 31.1 626.84. 68'.72 605.70 103.838011000 2.2 - 1.6 45.1 54.9 62.2 37.8 777.97 116.02 750.91 137.251001-1500 2.5 1.9 40. 59.3 52.0 48.0 1002.28 193.98 944.89 295.461501-2000 2.7 2.2 36.8 63.2 45.2 54.8 143218 270.53 1241.27 487.942001-2500 2.8 2.4 36.( 64.0 42.3 57.7. 1824.29 3775 1606.44 630.722501-3000 2.9- 2.3 34.1 , 65.9 42.8' 57.2 2115.22 598.99 2086.34 065.473001-3500 3.1 , 2.3 32.€ 674 44.2 55.8 2577.37 609.34 2430.31 351.25

3501 and . .above 3.0 -2.3- ?3..8 66.2 43.9 -- 56.1 5718.98 901.66 4784.62 2341.00

Source: 'Hous€hold, Income and Expenditure Survey, Federal Bureau of Statistics,Goveri..nt of Pakistan.

-25-

Thus it seems monthly income must be largely dependent on the supple-

mentation made by additional earners other than heads of households.

Migration:

The PLM survey collocted unique information about the migration

status of all household members. Therefore all household members can be

classified as in-migrants, out-migrants, return-migrants and potential-

migrants. Individual characteristics of migrants and non-migrants can

be thus assessed and cross--classifications can be made by age, income,

education, maritdl status. etc. In addition, migration flows between

rural and urban areas, between districts, provinces and out of the country

can also be estimated using the PU-I data. Most of these exercises have been

or are being dealt with in other publications /Trfan, et.al, 1983, Tbbasi

and Irfari 19837.re we present a table to help the readers savour

some of the possible cross--classifications about migrants that are avail-

able from the PLM data,

Table 15 depicts the demograrhic characteristics of the population

by migration status for all

Pakistan and also for rural and urban areas.

The mean age of non-migrants is the owest and more than 60 percent are

single rf1octing that th is category contains niotlydhildren and that

it is mostly adults who comprise migrants. Puite a large proportion of

in and out migrants (excluding those who migrate for marria ge), particular-

ly in the latter category, falls into age group 20-34. This pro-

portion is especially high in urban areas (84%). Return 'Migrants were the

oldest on average and also écnpric very few single persons.

Table 15: Demographic Characteristics of the Survey Population by Migration Status -2-

In Ages 20 7 34 . household

S . 5

Mean Age...Migration Ye:.. Singe % household i-iead % Illiterate MatricJQ) % viale -

status 'fobal Rural Ur!Jafl Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Thtal Rural Urban

on migrant lC.0 17.7 11.3 .22.1 22.4 21.9 60,,3 59.2 63,3 161 149 16.6 75.0 61.0 57.0 9.2 5.0 17.6 51.6 51.6 51.5

Potencial-i .iicj rant 37.2 364 39.8 75.6 27.0 25.0 52.5 51.5 56.3 25.7 29.6 24.6 58.1 65.7 30.2 19.7 16.1 32.7 70.5 69.7 75.8

Return-nigrant 32.9 31.6 39.5 31.7 32.8 30.7 38.3 37.6 42.0 37.1 37.1 37.1 55.9 59.9 35.8 22.9 21.2 31.4 68.8 65.4 72.6

In-migrant 23.7 21.2 27.8 2.9 25.9 23.7 55.5 55.7 55.3 21.2 22.0 20.7 56.6 77.8 45.3 13.0 6.5 23.8 56.5 55.9 57.5(excludingfor marriage)

Out-migrant 76.2 83.5 70.5 22.0 20.7 23.1 32.4 14.3 46.3 N.A N.A N.A 58.0 82.1 39.5 23.8 6.8 37.0 47.0 1.5 71.3includingmarriage

Out.-migrant 5•7 0.6 2.5 24.4 21.6 59.7 57.7 60.0 A.A i'.A 1.A 30.7 41.0 29.2 43.6 26.2 46.1 96.1 92.7 96.6excludingmarriage

Source: PLM Survey (Migration module)

*'

-27-

There is a predominance of males amongst those who migrate, par-

ticularly out-migrants, 'excluding thuse who migrate for marriage Whereas

the expected even sex ratio prevails amongst non-migrants (i.e. 52 percent

are males) this proportion is highest anongst out-migrants (cxcluding

those who migrat. for marriage) and also quite high amongst potential-

migrants and return-migrants. In-migrants and out-migrants including those

migrating for marriage naturally includes geter proportions of females.

Literacy is highest amongst-out-migrants who are not migrating foi marriage

purposes (69.3%). The corresponding figure for other categories apart

from non-migrants is roughly similar at 42-45 percent. Thus it seems that

out-migrants (excepting those who migrate to marry) are most likely to

be single males, between the age of 20 and 34, largely from urban areas

and quite probably literate.

Fertility:

The fertility module was administered to ever-married women aged

between 10-and 50 years of age. To select eligible women for the fertility

sirvey, the migration survey was taken as a base and 10244 households were

enumerated. The households finally covered by the-fertility module were

8397. These were the households where at least one eligible female was

found and enumerated. hs shown in Table 16, the difference between the

- householdscovêred by the.migration survey and the fertility survey was not

• totally accounted for by -non-response because a substantial number of house-

holds enumerated by the migration survey were those where no eligible female

• was found. The distribution of the house ,holds covered by the fertility

-28- -

Table: 16PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLED HOUSEHOLD, HOUSEHOLD ENUMERATEDFOR MIGRATION AND FERTILITY MODULES FOR PAKISTAN, RURAL-URBAN AREAS

AND PROVINCES

Enumerated Household'sArea/ Sampled Total H.H.'s- H.H.'s House- Enumera- in the Fertility ModuleProvinces House- house- with with no hold ted house- by the number of eligi-

holds hold no women eligible with hold's for ble women interviewed.women eligible fertility

- women module 1 2 3 5+

PAKISTAN 11288 10244 330 1030 8884 8397 7011 1137 197 43 9

(100.0) (lOO.OX (3.2) (10.1) (86,7) (100.0) (S3.5)(13.5) (2.3) (0.5) (0.1)

Urban 4613 3902 155 345 3402 3216 2709 419 72 13 3

(40.0) (38.1) (4.0) (8.8) (872) (38.3) (84.2) (13,0) (2.2) (0.5) (0.1)

Rural 6675 6342 175 685 5482 5181 4302 718 125 30 6

(59.1) (61.9) (2.8) (10.8) (86.4) (61.7) (83.b)(13.9) (2.4) (0.6) (0.1)

PUNJAB 6475 6290 183 739 5368 5128 4399 621 90 16 2(100) (100.0) (2.9) (11.8) (85.3) (100.0) (85.8) (12.1) (1.8) (0.3) (-)

Urban 2,388 2036 72 213 1751. 1653 1427, 195 26 5 -

(36.9) (32.4) (3.5) (10.5) (86.0) (32.2) (86,3)(11.8) (1.6)(0.3)(-)

Rural 4087 4254 ill 526 3617 3475 2972 426• 64 11 2

(63.1) (67.6) (2.6) (12.4) (85.0) (67.8) (85.5) (12.3) (1.8) (0.3) (0.1)

SIND 2625 2278 91 160 2027 1953 1526 332 74 17 4

(100.0) (100.0). (4.0) (7.0) (89.0) (100.0) (78.1) (17.0) (3.8) (0.9) (0.2)

Urban ... 1425 1269 55 95 1119 1075 . 885 152 30 6 2

(54.3) (55.7) (4.3) (7.5) (88.2) (55.0) (82.3) (14.1) (2.8) (0.6) (0.2)

Rural 1200 1009 36 65 908 878 641 180 44 11 2

(45.7) (44.3) (3.6) (6.4) (90.0) (45.0). (73.0) ( .20.5) (5.0) (1.3) (0.2)

NWFP .1375 1201 43 102 1056 942 789 123 . 22 7 1

(100.0) (100.0) (3.6) (8,5) (87.9) (100.0)(83.8) (13.1) (2.3)(0.7)(0.1)

Urban 500 385 21 27 337 320 271 39 8 2 -

(36.4) (32.0) (5.5) (7.0) (87.5) (34.0) (84.7)(12.2.) (2.5)(O.6) -

Rural 875 816 22 75 719 622 518 64 14 5 1

(63.6) (68.0) (2.7) (9.2) (88.1) (66.0) (83.'3)(13.5) (2.2) (0.8) (0.2)

BALUCHIS- 813 475 13 29 433 374 297 61 ii 3 2TAN (100.0) (100.0) (2.7) (6.1) (91.2) (100.0) .(79.4) (16.3) (2.9) (0.8) (0.6)

Urban 300 212 7 10 195 168 126 33 8 - 1

(36.9) (44.6) (3.3) (4.7) (92.0) (44.9) (75.0) (19.6) (4.8) - (0.6)

Rural 513 263 6 19 238 206 171 28 3 3 1

(63.1) (55.4) (2.3) (7.2) (90.5) (55.1) (83.0) (13.6) (1.4) (1.4) (06)An eligible female is a woman ever-married and less than or equal to 50 years of ageat the time of interview.

Source: PLM Survey 1979.

survey suggests that more than 33 percent of them have only one eligible

female, while.3 percent of households have three or more eligible females.

No distinct urban-rural differentials were found in the case of number of

eligible females per household. Findings based on the Pakistan Fertility

Household survey (1975) show that roughly 70 percent of households con-

tained one married couple living with their children. The provinces of

Sind and Baluchistan had relatively higher percentages of households with

more than one eligible women and this could be due to i greater prevalence

of traditional joint families or to higher incidence of polygamy.

However, it is interesting to note that this pattern was more obvious in

rural areas of Sind whereas in Baluchistan relatively more urban households

had more than one eligible female.

Table 17 presents the age distribution of ever-married women

between 15-49 years of Pakistan and also for urban and rural areas for

the PLM fertility survey, The National Impact Survey 1968 and the Pa1ctan

FertilitySurvey, 1975. The table indicates that a maximum number of women

Table: 17

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EVER-MARRIED WOMEN BY AGE AND RESIDENCEillS 1968, PFS 1975 AND PLM 1979-80

PAKISTAN URBAN RURAL

Current NIS PFS PU! illS PFS PLM NIS PFS PLM

Age

15_19* 12 12.7 7.3 10 -. 6.0 13 - 7.7

20-24 20 17.0 17.3 18 - 15.8 21 - 17.7

25-29 21 18.4 19.0 23 - 20.6 20

30-34 16 16.6 16.6 17 - 16.7 15 - 16.6

35-39 16 12.6 14.7 16 - 14.9 16 -. 14.6

40-44 11 12.6 12.7 11 - 12.6 11 - 12.6

45-49 5 10.1 12.4 6 - 13.4 4 - 12.1

Median29.2 29.3 30.2 - - - - - -(Years)

* The women under age 15 are included in the age group 15-19 years

Source: NIS 1968, PFS 1975, and PLM Survey 1979-80 (Fertility Module)

in each survey are in the ago group of 25-29. However, 24.6 percent are

reported as under 25 years of age in the PLM whereas the same age group

accounted for 32 percent in NIS (1968) and 29.7 percent PFS (1975). Thus

the PLM contains a relatively older sarnolo, most probably a reflection of

the rising age at marriage in the country. The table also reveals that the

current survey hs a relatively higher number of older females in the

• survey population. These observations are supported by the rise over time

in the vaedian age (Table 17). -

Just as the average age of women shows a rise -compared to the PFS

and is reflective of changes in nuptiality, it is expected that due to

secular rises in educational levels and literacy of women, women selected

in the current survey will portray relatively higher educational attain-

ment levels. Educational levels of woman in the PLN appear to be slightly

• higher than in the PFS: a smaller prportion of women have primary and

less education and a greater proportion have above primary education.

Also older women actually show lesser differences in educational compo-

sition across the two surveys than younger women reflecting that

differences in educational composition across the two survey are due

to recent improvements ineducatiorial attainment, particularly apparent

- • at the above primary level. -

-31-Table: 18

DISTRIBUTION OF EVER-MARRIED WOMEN (15-49) BY THEIR LEVELSOF EDUCATION AND CURRENT AGE, PFS 1975 AND PLI4 1979-80

15-1920-2425-2930-3435-.3940-4445-49All

L'.L or Li,Uc\aIO4.

IJo Schoolirr'j Pri.tiary and Less.-_Abovc Primary -PF

PLi,iFF5 Pt rFS

88 88.6 9 6.0 3 5,486 84.6 8 - 7.0 6 8.487 86.5 •7 6.2 ' 6 7.389 88.3 - 7 4.6 4 - 6.591 90.5 '5 4.6 494 - 93.1 S 3.4 2 3.5'94 94.6 3 3.1 3 2.3

89.3 89.0 6.7 5.1 4.0 5.8

CurrentAge

• Source: PLM Survey (Fertility Module), PFS 1975.

• Exposure status is an important determinant of current fertility

levels. A comparison of exposure status of ever-married women (Table 19)1975

across the PFS/and PLM 1979, reveals that there is a considerable

increase in the oercentage of fecund women in the later survey. Also

conversely, a decreasing trend is visible in pregnant, infecund, widowed,

divorced and separated women. The proportion , of women sterilized do not

show any perceptible change across the two surveys. An examination of

urban-rural differentials in exposure status of women indicates no

significant variation except for sterilized women, who are reported to

be 2 percent in urban areas and 0.5 percent in rural areas. In comparison

the PFS 1975 portrays a similar pattern for urban as well as rural areas

with a slight variation in the case of sterilized women. Significant

vaxiation across the age cohorts has been recorded in pregnancy status,

with higher percentage of pregnant women in younger cohorts and lesser

pregnant women in the older cohorts (Appendix Table 3).

-32-

rdwe: 1

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF . EVER-MARRIED WOMEN BY THEIR EXPOSURE

STATUS AND BY AREA OF RESIDNCE:PFS 1975, AND PLM 1979-80

PAiSTA UR3A RURAL

Exposure Status PrC T'FS L'L

Pregnant 16 13.1 17 13.4 16 13.0

Widowed/Divorced/Seperated6 . 3;3• 6 3.4 6 3.2

Sterilized - 1 0.9 2 2.0 0 0.5

• Not fecund 11 7.0 11 7.8 11 6.8

Fecund 66 75.7 64 73.4 67 76.5

Source: PLN Survey (Fertility tiodule) PFS 1975..

Direct estimates of mean age at marriage, as derived from the

ages at marriage stated by ever-married women included in the fdrtility

survey, are presented in Table 20 and show a gradual increase in the mean

age at marriage from 15.8 years in 1968 (NIS), to 17.5 years in the current

survey. It has been observed that the mean age at marriage was even

lower (14.3 years) in 1946-50 (Booth and Alarn 1980). This increase over

time in the mean age at marriage is also evident from the proportions

ever-married amongst all women, as discussed earlier. Both urban and

rural areas also show an increase in age at marriage, however, the mean

age at marriage remains higher in urban as compared to rural areas.

Tabl: 20

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF EVER-MARRIED WOMEN BY THEIR AGE AT

MARRIAGE AND AREA IN NIS 1968-69, PFS 1975, PLM 1979-80

Age at PAKISTid URiAN RURAL

Marri.tge • NIS PFS PLU i15 PFS ?L JI6 ?FS i'Li'

<1515-1718-1920+ileari ecie attiarriago

38 28.3 12.3 35 • -. 12.7 40 - 12.2

40 41.5 42.6 40 - 40.0 39 . - 43.6

11 15.3 19.6 14 - 21.0 11 - 19.1

10 14.9 25.4 13 - 26.3 10 - • 25.2

15.8 16.5 17.5 15.9 16.7 17.6 15.6 16.4 17.4

Source: HIS 1968, PFS 1975, PLM Survey (Fertility Module).

-33--

The fertility module findings show that about half of all ever-

married women of ages 15-49 have over three children and at ages 45-49,

over--5O -pe-rcemt of- women--have -more , than si'children. Table 21 shows

the distributjon of women by their current ages and parity. The expected

positive age patterns of cumulative fertility emerges with only 1.8 per-

cent of Pakistani ending up as childless by age 45-49. Overall urban

cumulative fertility seems to be higher than, rural fertility, . 'a finding

in confirmity with earlier studies done using PFS data (Sathar 1979,

Casterljne 1980).

Table 22 shows the distribution of respondents by children ever-

born but classified by duration of marriage groups; The difference in

the two tables is mainly reflective of altering patterns of age at

marriage.. Age at marriage is higher amongst youngr women, excepting the

very youngest (as they are included only because they married very early).

Given this rising trend in age at marriage, the exposure period to child-

bearing is shorter for those who married later and may confound fertility

patterns. However, the pattern of child-bearing by duration of marriage

is much the same as that with age: at marriage durations of 20-24 years,

half of ever-married women have borne more than 6 children and the urban

rural differential persists..

- Appendix Table 4 and 5 contain the distr1butior of number of sur-

viving children and child deaths by age of mother and urban-rural resi-

dence. Table 23 contains summary measures of the mean number of children

ever-born, and a further breakdown of how many are still living and

those who are deceased. All three measures have a clear positive association

Table 21: Pei'centage Distribution of Respondents by 5 yearsAge Groups and Number of Childr€n Ever Born forPakistan and Urban-Rural Areas.

LHILDREN EVER BORNAge 3 1 2 3,4: 56 7

81 9+

& 20 Pakistan 66.0 26.3 5.8 1.3 0.30.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Urban 62.0 27.8 7.3 2.4 0.5 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rural 67.2 25.9 5.4 1.1 0.2 0.20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-24 Pakistan 23.6 ' 29.7 26.0 13.4 5.7 1.3 0.20.1 0.0 0.0

Urban 23.2 28.4 23.5 17.2 5.1 2.10.2 0.3 0.0 0.0

Rural 238 30.1 26.8 12.2 5.9 1.00.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

25-29 Pakistan 7.7 12.3 19.0 23.5 19.1 11.3 4.5 2.0 0.5 0.3

Urban 6.5 10.3 17.7 21.6 22.1 11.7 6.5 2.4 0.4 0.6

Rural 8.2 13.1 19.5 24.2 17.9 11.1 3.6 1.8 0.5 0.2

30-34 Pakistan 4.8 4.7 8.0 13.0 18.3 18.9 15.5 9.7 3.7 3.4

Urban 4.0 3.3 6.4 13.5 12.8 17.7 16.5 1L3 7.4 6.1

Rural 5.1 4.9 8.6 12.9 20.2 19.3 15.1 9.1 2.4 2.5

35-39 Pakistan 3.6 3.7 5.38.0 11.2 13.6 16.7 15.2 10.8' 11.9

Urban 2.4 3.0 3.9 7.39.9 13.2 13.7 18.8 121 15.7

Rural 1•Q 4.0 5.8 8.2 11.7 13.8 17.8 13.9 10.3 10.6

40-44 Pakistan 4.3 2.6 3.7 6.09.0 11.5 15.5 12.8 13.0 21.6

Urban 1 .0 2.0 2.9 5.27.8 12.0 14.4 12.6 15.2 26.8

Rural 5.4 2.8 4.0 6.39•4 11.3 15.9 12.9 12.3 19.8

45-49 Pakistan 1.8 2.1 3.1 5.7 7.99.6 12.0 14.6 12.5 30.8

Urban 2.1 1.8 2.0 5.1 8.89.0 10.0 14..2 13.4 33.7

Rural 1.6 2.3 3.5 5.9 7.59.8 12.8 14.7 12.1 29.7

All Pakistan 12.6 11.5 11.6 11.8 11.5 10.1 9.3 7.6 5.4 8.7

Urban 10.4 10.1 10.2 12.1 11.2 10.3 9.3 a6 6.7 11.1

Rural 13.3 12.0 12.1 11.6 11.6 10.0 9.3 7.2 4.9 7.9

Source: PLM Survey (Fertility module)

-3 ..Table 22: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by

Duration of Marriage and Children ever bornfor Pakistan, and Urban-Rural Areas

Duration of CHILTREW MT-,' B!marriage 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+

0-4 Pakistan k7 3 36.5 12.8 1 5 0 t 0.2 0. 0Urban 42.5 36.6 17.2 2.4 00 0.5 O. ..Rural 48.9 36.5 11.3 1.2 0.5 0.1 0 0.5

59 Pakistan 8.9 13.7 30.6 26.6 13.9 4.0 1.0 - 0.4Urban 6.9 10.6 25.5 33.1 15.3 7.0 0.9 0.2Rural 9.6 14.8 32.3 24.3 13.4 3.0 1.1 0.5

0.2 0.3

0.1 0.3

0.2 0.3

0.3 0.5

0.3 0.20.3 •0.7

10-14 Pakistan 3.7 4.7 8.5 18.3 23.2 22.2 11.7 5.2 1.7 0.8Urban 3.1 2.9 5.3 15.1 26.2 19.5 14.8 8.9 2.4 .1.6Rural 3.9 5.3 9.6 19.4 22.1 23.1 10.7 4.0 1.5 0.6

15-19 Pakistan 3.8 3.1 5.1 9.4 14.3 15.4 20.1 15.4 6.5 6.6Urban 2.5 2.2 4.0 8.1 8.5 17.7 19.1 1.5 11.0 10.2Rural 4.3 3.8 5.4 9.8 16.3 14.6 20.5 15.0 5.0 5•4

20-24 Pakistan .3.1 2.2 3.5 5.1 9.2 11.9 15.3 15.7 14.1 19.8Urban 1.3 1.9 1.9 5.6 7.8 10.9 12.9. 16.5 16.0 25.2Rural 3.8 2.4 4.1 1.9 9.7 12.3 16.1 15..4 13...x 17.9

25-29 Pakistan .3.0 2.3 3.5 5.8 6.5 9.7 12.1 13.5 14.8 23.7Urban 1.5 1.9 3.3 3.7 6.9 8.7 12.9, 15.3 15.3 30.5Rural .3.5 2.5 3.6 6.5 6.4 10.0 11.9 12.8 11.7 23.1

30-34 Pakistan 1.0 1.4 2.4 5.5 7.3 8.8 13.1 13.7 ..3.1 33.2Urban 0.4 1.1 0.4 '.5 3.0 8.6 10.6 . 13.3 14.1 38.9Rural 1.2 1.6 3.4 6.0 7.7 8.8 14.2 13.9 12.6 30.5

35+ Pakistan 4.7 2.1 1.9 6.2 14.4 11.7 6.7 16.4 6.8 29.1Urban 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.1 13.3 0.0 9.3 13.8 35.5Rural 5.6 2.5 2.3 7.4 11.6 11.4 8.0 17.8 5.4 27.8

All Pakistan 12.6 11.5 11.6 11.8 11.5 10.1 9.3 7.6 5.4 8.7Urban 10.4 10.1 10.2 12.1 11.2 10.3 9.3 , 8.6 6.7 11.1Rural 13.3 12.0 12.1 11.6 11.6 10.0 9.3 .7.2 4.9 7.9

Source: PLM Survey ( Fertility module). - -

Table 23: Mean Nuxrber of Children Ever Born, Surviving- Children and Deceased Children for Pakistan-.:

and Urban Rural-Areas

Age group CEB Surviving Deceased• children

• <20 Pakistan 0.4 0.4 0.1• Urban 0.5 0.4 0.1

Rural 0.4 0.3 0.1

• 20-24 Pakistan 1.5 1.3 0.2•. Urban 1.6 1.4 0.2

Rural 1.5 1.3 - 0.2

25-29 - Pakistan 3.0 2.5 0.5• Urban 3.2 2.8 0.4

Rural 2.9 - 2.4 0.5

30-34 Pakistan 4,5 3.8 0.7Urban 4.9 4.,2 0.7Rural 4.4 3.6 0.7

35-39 Pakistan 5.6 4.6 1.0• Urban 6.0 5.1 0.9

Rural 5.4 4.4 • 1.0

-40-44 Pakistan 6.2 5.0 1.2- : Urban • 6.8 5.6- 1.2

Rural -. 6.0 4.8- 1.2

45-49 Pakistan 6.9 5.4 1.5- Urban 7.2 5.7 1.4- Rural 6.8 - 5.2 - 1.6

All • Pakistan 4.0 3.3 0.8Urban 4.4 3.7 0.7Rural - 3.9 3.2 0.8

Source; PLM Survey (Fertility Module)

__

with age of mother. By age 45-49, having reached the end of the child-

bearing period, women in Pakistan on average hive borne 6_9 children,

out of which 5.4 survive and 1.5 are dead. Interestingly,.- urban women

consistently bear a large number of children, lose fewer of them through

infant and child deaths and consequently end up with a greater differential

(than in CEB) in the number of surviving children.

The fertility preferences of ever-married women were also explored

in the survey. Table 24 presents the breakdown of the moan number of

additional children desired by women by their age. As expected this re-

lationship is negative as women when older want fewer additional child-

ren. The urban-rural differences are- of-inter estonemore as urban

women consistently desire fewer additional children as compared with

rural women. However, as seen in Table 23 urban women also have a lar-

ger number of surviving children at all ages and this may well influence

their statements of how many more they wañ. Table 25 therefore, gives

the breakdown of mean number of additional children desired by the number

of living children. Even so, after controlling for the number of living

children, fertility desires are higher in the rural areas than in urban

areas. So quite interestingly urban women say they want fewer children

than rural women but end up having a large family size. This may be

attributable to factors related to fecundity and in particular to differ-

ences in brest-feeding and birth spacing habits in the two areas.

Table -26 depicts the distribution of ever-arried women by patterns

of contraceptive use, controlling for pertinent characteristics such as

age, duration of marriage, education, number pf . living children and expo-

sure status Amongst all ever-married women aged 15- 1 9 11 56 4 percent

-38-

Table 24: Mean Number of Additional Children Desiredby Age for Pakistan and Urban-Rural Areas

Age Pakistai Urban Rural

20 3.6 3.3 3.6

20-24 - 2.7 2.3 2.8

25-29 - 1.8 1.3 2.0

30-34 1.1 0.8 1.2

35-39 0.6 0.4 0.8

40-45 0.4 0.2 0.5

45-49 0.2 0.1 0.2

All 1.4 1.0 1.5

Source: PLM Survey (Fertility Module)

Table 25: Mean Number of Additional Children Desiredby Surviving Children for Pakistan and Urban

Rural Areas

Number ofSurviving children Pakistan Urban Rural

0 4.0 3.8 4.0

1 3.0 2.6. 3.0

2 1.9 1.6 2.0

3 1.2 0.9 1.3

4 0.5 0.4 0.6

5 0.3 0.2 0.4

6 0.2 0.1 0.2

7+ 0.1 0.1 0.1

All . 1.4 1.0 1.5

Source: PLM Survey ( Fertility Module

_3c_

Table 26: Distribution of all Currently Married WomenAccording to their Pattern of ContraceptiveUse and Selected Background Variables

Background PATTERN OF CONTRACEPTIVE USEVariables Infecund Never Never used Used in Used in Steri- Current

women used but and does not open in- closed lized ly us- Totalintends thtend future interval interval ing.using use

All women 7.5 21.4 66.4 0.4 1.0 0.9 2.5 100.0

Current Age

<20 0.6 10.1 89.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 7.320-24 0.3 16.9 81.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 1.1 .17.725-29 0.6 22.0 73.0 0.1 1.4 0.3 2.5 19.230-34 1.9 25.4 67.0 0.2 1.8 0.9 2.9 16.7,35-39 5.4 29.8 57.1 0.5 1.1 2.1 3.9 14.640-44 15.3 24.8. 52.6 1.0 1.1 1.5 3.6 12.445-49 35.8 14.6 44.6 0.5 0.6 1.5 2.4 12.0

Years since 1st Marriage0

<10 0.5 17.0 80.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 1.5 37.310-19 2.3 26.6 65.3 0.2 1.4 1.1 3.2 33.020-29 15.3 . 23.6 54.0 0.9 1.1 1.7 3.4 22.430+ 42.0 13.8 39.5 0.7 0.6 1.6 1.8 7•4

Level of Education

No schooling 7.8 20.2 68.6 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.7 89.1Primary & Less 5.0 32.2 53.0 1.2 2.0 2.2 4.4 5.2Secondary & 4.1 30.6 43.5 1.1 4.3 3.1 13.4 5.8higher

No. of Living Children

0 17 7.8 90.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.71 4.0 14.1 81.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 13.72 4,5 17.4 74.9 0.3 0.8 0.1 2.1 14.43 6.5 23.2 65.1 0.4 1.5 0.5 2.7 13.74 8.9 29.0 56.0 0.2 1.3 1.1 3.5 12.75 11.1 29.0 52.4 0.5 1.6 1.6 3.9 10.66 12.9 28,8 50.2 0.4 1.2 2.4 14.0 8.77+ 14.8 29.3 45.6 1.2 2.0 2.4 4.7 11.6

Exposure Status

Pregnant 0.0 22.6 75.1 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 1_6Sterilized 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.9Not fecund 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3Fecund 0.0 23.4 71.9 0.5 0.9 0.0 3.2 78.2

Residence

Urban 8.5 26.9 53.8 0.6 2.4 2.0 5.8 100Rural 7.1 19.5 70.8 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 1010

Source: PLM Survey (Fertility Module)

-40-

(an astoundingly high figure) have never used and do not intend to use

çQepv1n the future; 21.4 percent liav never used but intend to

-Use; 7.5percent are infecund and 3.4 percent are currently using or te

ri1ized. Current use and sterilization levels are higher with age of

women, and with number of living children. Also education, particularly

of secondary and higher level and urban residence lead to higher levels

of contraceptive use. Of those women who are fecund, 71.9 percent do not

intend using and 23.4 percent intend using but are never users. It is

inte resting to note that the proportion of womenwho report themselves

as-infecund are also related positively to age, duration of marriage and

number of living children. This must be reflective of the actual decline

in fecundity by these factors plus the perception of infecund status

which may-occur out of the-fact that intercourse is infrequent.

Summary: - -

This profile of the various social, economic and demographic aspects

of households in Pakistan,-ought to help the reader savourthe..expensive.:

data yielded by the four-in-one exercise of the Population, Labour Force

and Migration Survey of 1979. The major contribution of the survey is -.

in providing details about-fertility, migration, labour force and income

and expenditure behaviour at the household level. The profile presented

here confirms that the PLM.survey is comparable to the 1981 Census in

terms of-aggregated data. This is reassuring as . we can then assume en

more sound grounds that the results of the sample survey are also likely

to be nationally representative. It must be pointed Out that from the

onset this paper was not intended to provide a summary of possible fin-

dings from the PLM but only to act as a background paper for further analysis.

Some of the more interesting findings from this preliminary review

were of a greater proportion of nuclear households in rural than in urban

areas. Average household size was also larger in the latter.. A compari-

son of the age and sex distribution with the 1981 census showed a deficit

of males in the age group 0-4 years. Data on marital status confirmed

the trend of rising age at marriage for men and women which has been

established using earlier data set. Educational characteristics of the

population portray sharp inequalities in attainment levels across urban

and rural areas and across sexes but show some slight improvement over time.

The Labour Force module of the survey depicted low female labour

force participation rates, a characteristics found in most surveys in

Pakistan, and quite different patterns of urban and rural employment.

For instance, in rural areas there is a greater proportion of unpaid

family workers or self-employed whereas in urban areas, employees are

more predominant. Also the majority of those working in urban areas are

engaged in the production and transport sectors or in sales work while

agriculture absorbs the greatest number of workers in rural areas.

The Income and Expenditure Module found average levels of house-

hold income to be higher in urban than in rural areas and the households

in the former had on average larger number of earners. In all house-

holds, the head of household contributed the major share of total income

but additional earners were associated with enhancement of earnings.

The Migration component of the survey found that out-migrants,

excluding those who move to get married, tends to be urban, literate

males between the age of 20 to 3. Characteristics of in-migrants are

less marked but they usually comprise young adults who move in search

of work or to marry.

REFERENCES

1. Abbasi, Nasreen and Mohammad Ix±an, Socio .-Economic_Effects of

International Migration on the Families Left Behind. Studiesin Population, Labour Force and Higration Project Report No..7, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics: 1983.

2. -Alam, Iqbal and John G. Cleland, If:mt and Child Mortality: 7-12'endsand Deterninants. Fertility in Pakistan: A Review of Findingsfrom the Pakistan Fertility Survey. International Statistical

Institute, Voorburg, Netherland, 1984.

3. Booth4 Heather and Iqbal Alam, Fertility in Pakistan, LevelsTrends and Differentials World Fertility Survey Conference

Paper, London, July 1980.

4. Casterline, John, Fertility Differentials in Pakistan, WorldFertility Survey Conference Paper, London, July 1960.

5. Farooqui, M. Naseem Iqbal and Ohazi Mumtaz Farooq, Final Report ofPopulation Growth Estimation Experiment: 1962-65, PakistanInstitute of Development Economics, Dacca, July 1971.

6. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Household Income and Expenditure Survey

.1979. Karachi, 1983.

7. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Population Growth

Srvey, Karachi,e1968--71,

8. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Sta:istics Division, Population Growth

Survey, Karachi, 1976-78.

9. Federal Bureau of Etatistics, Statistics Division, Labour Force Survey

1974-75, Karachi.

10 Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Labour Force Survey

1978-79, KSrahi. . ....

11. Hashmi, S.S., Masihur Rehman Khar! and K.L. iKrotki,. The People ofKarachi: Data from a Survey, Pakistan Institute of Developnint

Economics, Karachi, 1964. .

12 Irfan, Mohammad, Lionel Demery, Ghuiam Mohammed Arif. MigrationPatterns in Pakistan: Preliminary Results from the PLM Survey1979. Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration

ect Report No. 6, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics,

Islamabad, 1983.

13. Kabir, Mohammed, The Demographic Characteristics of Household Popula-tion, WFS ComparativeStudies No. 6, International Statistical

Institute, Voorburg, Netherlands, 1985.

_L4I._

14. Karim, M. Fertility.Differentials by Family Type, PakistanDevelopment Review, 13(2). Pakistan Institute of DevelopmentEconomics, Islamabad, 1974.

15. MahmoodNaushin. Literacy and-Educational Attainment in Pakistan1951-73, The Pakistan Developient Review, XVII(3) PakistanInstitute of Development Economics, Islamabad, 1978.

16. Mahmood Naushin, and Syad Mubashir. Au, Nuptiality Patterns inPakistan, Studies in Population, Labour Force and MigrationProject Report No., -2, Pakistan I'nstiite of DevelopmentEconomics, Islamabad. 1983. -

17. Pakistan Census OrganizQtion, Population Census of Pakistan: 1951,(West Pakistan) Karachi.

18. Pakistan Census Organization, Population Census of Pakistan: 1961,(West Pakistan) Karachi.

19. Pakistan Census Organization, Population Census of Pakistan: 1972,Islamabad, 1973.

20. Pakistan Census Organization, Population Census oP Pakistan: 1981,Islamabad, 1983.

21. Pakistan Census Organization, housing Economic and DemographicSurvey, 1973, Islamabad.

22. Popu1atiu Planning Council of Pakistan, Pakistan Fertility Surve1975, Islamabad, 1976.

23. Sathar, Z.A. Rural-Urban Fertility Differentials 1975, The PakistanDevelopment Review, Vol. XVII (3), Pakistan Instit ofDevelopment Economics, Islamabad, 1979.

24. Shah, Nakhdoom and Sathar, Z. Quantification of Un-employment andUnderemployment in Pakistan: Problems of Conceptualization__Measurement, Proceedings of the ILO Conference on EmploymentPlanning and Basic Needs, Islamabad, May 1978.

25. Training, Research and Evaluation Centre (TREC) national ImpactSurvey, Lahore, n .d.

000

19.517.421.911.624.911.69.4

10.47.37.94.48.8

00

24.229.416.211.814.010.912.39.3

11.88. 68.35.1

12.8

0.545.226.35.74•4

4.114.914.814.66.95.614.26.4147

12.9

99.554.'835.532.536.943.047.646.359.160. 1456.670.568.880.655 2

00

14.07.29.15.76.85.45.77.79.25.06.13.35.8

15.116.113.610. 98.66.45.14.8

.4.2.3.93. 22.6

- 2.33.3

1'6 C)

0•00'5. 6.15.913.49.27'.7

76.36.414', 52.51-.94.5'-

Appendix Table 1

Percentage Distribution of Po lat±on--by' A' -SexEducation Level for Urban Areas

Age No YEARS IF SCW)OLI'

Groups scooiinj 5 6-9 10-11 12+1ota1- I

- MALE

0_I4 99.5 0.5 0 0 .'..' 15;0:5-9 50.8 49.2 0 0 '. 0 0 p16.010-14 33.5 26.8 14.7 25.0 0.0 0.0 13.7

15-19 23.9 .7.0 6.8 35.1, 22.0 5.3 10.9

20-24 26.7 4.4 7.4 20.6L 21.9 194 8.6

25-29 24.0 5.'0 5.9 13.6 32.5 19.1 6.1.30-34 32.4 .6.1 6.7 141 28.1 12.5 4.935-39 38.0 5.1 5.6 11.7 28.2 11.3 .4.840-44 42.6 5.8 7.8 16.2 16.6 10.9r 4.1.14-49 42.0 10.8 9.2 . 12.1 15.6 10.5:50-54 43.3 6.4 12.8 17.6 15.9 4.0 , 3.65559 535 '59 7.2 12.9 13.1 7.460-64 54.9 90 8.0 12.4 11.9 3.9 . 2.565+ 6.4 7.8 4.9 9.0 8.3 3.6, .. 3.2Total 45.8 14,7 6.7 14.0 12.8 6.0 100

FEMALE

99.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

15-.2

5-9

59.2

140.8

0

0

0

0

16.210-14

38.1

25.6

13.0

23.2

0

13.415-19

41.9

4.3

7.7

23.2

16.9

60

11.020-24

48.2

4.4

11..0

11.5

12.4

12.5

8.5

- 25-29

65.3

3.1

5.4

9.8

9.5

6.8

6.8•30-34

68.4

3.8

7.3

7.5

6.8

6.1

5.335-39

73.2

4,3

5.1

9.6

5.3

2.5

14.84044

78.1

3.6

3.8

8.6

3.4

2.545-49

81.0

2.6

610

6.2

2.6

1.'

.3.9.50-54

78.7

4.4 3.2

2.0

1.4

10. 3

2.3.55-59

91.0

2.1

2.3

3. 3

0..3

1.0

2.4.60-64

88.8

2.7

3.3

2. 4

2.2

0.5 .2.065+

95.7

1.1+

1.6

1.1

0.2

0.0

3.3Total

67.7

11.14

5.1

8.4 4,14 3:0

oo

BOTH SEXES

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425--2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465+Total

Source: PLM Survey (Migration

Appendix_Table 2

Percentage Distribution of Population by Age. Sex andEducation Level for Rural Areas

Age No YEARS or SCHOOL IV'

Groups 'Schooling 14 5 69 10:11 12+ Total

MALE

0-4 99.7 0.3 0 0 0 0 16.1

5-9 70.6 29.4 0 0 0 0

• 10-14 414.3 28.7 12.4 14,6 0 0 12.6

15-19 48.8 6.2 8.5 28.2 7.0 1.3 9.1

20-24 54.4 6.9 9.7 14.6 10.9 3.5 6.4

25-29 54.2 5.0 20.3 11.4 5.8 3.4 6.2

30-34 65.3 6.8 10.4 8.8 5.14 3.3 5.3

35-39 65.9 8.14 8.9 10.7 3.4 1.7 14.7

40-44 73•14 5.2 7.2 9.2 34 1.6 4.314 549 77.5 6.2 6.•5 6.8 2.3 0.7 4.0

50-54 79.5 5.1 6.7 6.2 2.1 0.4 3.8

55-59 80.0 6.0 5.5 5.9 2.4 0.2 2.3

60-64 88.3 3.0 4.1 3.8 0.8 0 3.2

65+ 86.2 4.8 3.1 4.1 1.6 0.2' 4.7

Total 69.6 11.7 6.7 8.4 2.7 1.0 100

FEMALE

014

99.8

0.2

0

0

0

0

16.7

90.4

9.6

0

0

0

0

17-2

10-14

82.3

10.8

3.8

3.2

0

0

12. 0-

15-19

85.4

3.6

5.5

4.5

1.0

0

8.1+

20-24

89.9

1.6

4.8

2.0

1.2

0.6

9.1

25-29

92.3

1.8

2.8

2.1

0.6

0.14

6.730-3'

94.4

1.4

2.0

1.2

0.8

0.3

5.835-39

95.4

1.4

1.5

0.9

0.6

0.2

4.9

140-44

96.3

1.1

1.8

0.5

0.1

0.1 414

45-49

97.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.0

0.0

4.250-54

98.6

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0

2.955-59

98.8

0.7

0.2

0.2

0 2

0.0

2.960-64

98.2

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.0

0.0

2.365+ 9914 0.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.6Total

92.7

3.8

lag

1.2

0.3

0.1

100

BOTH SEXES

0-4 99.7 0.3 0 '0 0

5-9 80.0 20.0 0 0 0

10-114 61.8 20.4 8.4 9.3 0

15-19 65.5 5.0 7.1 17.4 4.2

20-24 73.4 461 71 7.9 5.7

25-29 72.2 35 12.0 7.0 3 4

30-34 79.9 4.1 6.2 5.0 3.1

35-39 80.3 4.9 5.3 5.9 2.6

40-44 88.5 3.3 4.6 5.0 1.8

45-49 87.9 3.4 3.6 3.7 1.1

50-54 87.2 3.3 4.2 37. 1.3

55-59 90.0 3.2 2.7 2.8 1.2

60-64 92.2 2.0 2.7 2.5 0.565+ 91.6 2.9 2.0 2.14 0.9Total 80.5 7.9 4.14 5.0 1.6 --

Q 16.4o 17.30 .12.30.7 8.71.9 7.22.0 6.41.8 5.61.0 4.80.9 4.30.'4 '4.10.3 340.1 2.6'0 2.80.1 4.20.6 100

Source: PLM Survey (Migration Module).

I-- .-..-' -47-Appendix Table - 3

Percentage Distribution of Ever-married Women by AgeEx Q -Uijaan-Rural_ Areas

Exposure AGEStatus 15-19 20-2 2529 30-34 - 35-39 40-44' 5'-49 Total

• . . -'' PAKISTAN ' ..•

Pregnant ' -20.0 20.8' 17.8 '14.8 97 ' 5.0 1.6 13.1W/D/S 2.6 1.0 1.8 2.6 3.6 6.1 6.7 3.3

1.Sterilized- 0.0 ' 0.1 03 0.9 ' 2.0 1.4 ' 1.5 "0.9Not Fecund -'0.4 ' 0.2 0.4 1.3 4.9 14.2 1 33.3 7.0Fecund ' '77.0 78.0 79.6 80.4 " 79.7 73.3 ' 569 75.7

PregnantW/d/SSterilized.Not .Fecund,Fecund

.23.5 . 22.6 .18.50.5 0.6 2.10.0 . 0.0 0.81.5 . 0.9. 0.7

.74.5 -, '75.9.. 77.9

URBAN

-14.4 - 10.9.3.3 3.7

.2.8 • 3.5

.1.6 - 5.0..

.77.9 . 76.9.

3.6 ' 1.2

6.2 7.3

3.2 3.114.4 . .34.372.6 .,. 54.1

13.43.42.07.8

73.4

RURAL . ..

Pregnant 19.0 20.2 17.5 14.9 9.

3 5.5 1.8 13.0W/D/S 3.2 1.1 1.7 2.3 3.5 6.1 6.4 3.2Sterilized . 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.5, 0.3 ,,. 0.9 p0.5Not fecund . 0.1 , 0.0 0.3 1.2 4.9 14.1 32.9 6.8Fecund 77.6 - 78.7 80.3 81.4 80.8 73.5 . 58.0 76.5

.s:ource: PLM Survey (Fertility Module )

_L1 R-Appendix Table 4

Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Age andSurviving Children for Pakistan and Urban - Rural Areas

Age of Number cf Surviving Children

Women 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ All

<20 Pakistan 692 2.6-5 - 3.-3-- 0 "(Y 1 0 O '0 0 0 0 ,7.3-

Urban 657.28..0,-45 13 05 00 00 00 62

Rural 70.1 26'1 .... 2.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '7.7'

20-24 Pakistan 28-.1 32.5 26.4 9.1 3.4 0 o.0 0.1 1-7.7

Urban. 26.3 30.2' 27.0 12.4 2.8 . 1.0 0.0 0.3 16.2

Rural. 28.6 33.2 26.2 8.1 3.6 0.30.0 0.0 •18.2

25-29 - Pakistan 10.7 15.5 23.5 24.2 15.9 6.9 2.5 0.7 19.2

Urban 7.8 13.6 21.4 26.1 17.6 8.1 3.7 1.7 20.9.

Rural 11.9 16.2 24.4 23.5 15.2 6.5-2.00.3 18.7.

30-34 - Pakistan 5.7 7.0 ' 12.7 17.6 21..6 17.6 9.9 16.7

- Urban 4.4 5.5 10.2 17.0 17.7 18.3 13.2 13.7 16.7

'Rural 6.2 7.5 - 13.6 17.9 23.0 17.4 8.8 5.6 16.8

35-39 Pakistan 4.6

Urban 2.8

Rural

5.3

40-44

Pakistan 5.0Urban 1.7Rural 6.1

- ...45-49

Pakistan "2.5Urban 2.8Rural 2.3

5.1 8.3 13.2 16.5 15.9 16.2 20.2 14.63.7 6.0 10.8 13.8 18.9 15.7 28.2 14.95.6 . 9.1 14.0 17.5 14.8 16.4 17.3 14.5

4.5 6.8 10.5 13.3' 15.3 17.3 27.3 12.42.6 , 6.0 7.3 14.7 14.9 '17.4 35.2 12.35.2 7.0 11.6 12.8 15.4 17.3 24.5 12.4

4.3 ' 6.6 9.7 11.1 16.8 16.7 32.2 12.03.7 2.8 9.5 10.9 15.7 '16.3 38.3 12.84.6 8.0 9.8 11.2 17.3 16.9 29.9 11.7

All Pakistan 14.7 13.7 14.4 13.7 12.7 10.6 8.7 11.6 100.0

Rural 11.7 11.7 12.9 14.1 12.4 11.6 9.6 16.1 100.0Rural 15.7 14.4 15.0 13.5 12.8 10.2 8.3 10.1 100.0

Source: PLM Survey (Fertility Module )

_40_

Appendix Table 5

Percentag e Distribut ion of R espondents by AandDeceased Children for Pakistan and Urban-Rural Areas

Age of Number of Deceased ChildrenWomen Area

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ All

< 20 Pakistan 949 6.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3Urban 92.0 7.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2Rural 93.2 6.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7

20-24 Pakistan 80.1 16.6 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7Urban 81.8 15.3 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2Rural 79.6 17.0 2.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2



35-39 Pakistan 47,0 26.3 14.8 6.5 2.6 1.6 0.8 0.4 14.6Urban 49.3 26.6 14.7 5.1 1.8 1.6 0.7 0.2 14.9Rural 46.2 26.2 114.9 7.0 2.9 1.6 0.8 0.5 14.5

40-44 Pakistan 42.6 22.4 18.7 8.2 4,4 2.0 1.2 0.5 12.4Urban 44.9 21.8 17.5 7.4 5.0 0.8 1.4 1.3 12.3Rural 41.8 22.6 19.1 3,5 4.2 2.4 1.2 0.2 12.4


All Pakistan 59.9 21.2 10.7 4.4 2.0 1.1 0.5 0.3 100.0Urban 61.3 20.7 10.3 4.0 1.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 100.0Rural 59.4 21.4 10.8 4.6 2.1 1.2 0.4 0.2 100.0

Source: PLN Survey (Fertility Module).

Documents

Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration … · · 2015-11-16Studies in Population, Labour Force and Migration ... SURVEY 1979-80 ZEBA A. SATHAR SYED MUBASHIR ALl G. MUSTAFA