POF 2017-2018: about ¼ of the disposable income of Brazilian households is non-monetary

November 25, 2020 10h00 AM | Last Updated: December 01, 2020 01h26 PM

Average Per capita Household Disposable Income (RDFPC) in Brazil was R$ 1,650.78 in 2018, and 23% (R$ 379.97) of it was non-monetary (from goods and services acquired without monetary compensation, provided by the government, institutions or other households) besides estimated rents (rental figures proposed by the interviewee, in privately-owned or lent housing units).

Minimum income, reported as the minimum household income needed to make ends meet throughout the month, was R$ 1,331.57, which is equivalent to 80.7% of the disposable income. Among the 10% of the population with the lowest earnings, nevertheless, minimum income (R$ 470,29) was almost twice the disposable income (R$ 244.60).

All that and more can be found in the Consumer Expenditure Survey (POF) 2017-2018 – Profile of Spending, which also shows that RDFPC of the richest 10% (R$ 6,294.83) is three times that of the poorest 40% (R$ 538.22). That way, the average income of the richest 10% (R$ 6,294.83) is almost 12 times higher than that of the 40% of the population with the lowest income (R$ 538.22).

Considering monetary and non-monetary income, and according to poverty lines adopted to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals, POF observed that 1.4% of the country’s population was extremely poor and 12.1% were poor. In addition to that, 77.8% of all poverty is concentrated in the h with households with a black or brown reference person. A reference person for POF is the one in charge of the main expenses, such as rent, mortgage, condominium fees, etc.

In Brazil, the average per capita spending on housing is R$ 264.66, being R$ 249.32 in the urban area and R$ 15.34 in the rural area. The biggest component is estimated rent (R$ 202.08 or 76.4%), followed by rent (12.7%), condominium fees (6.8%) and e IPTU (Urban Building and Land Tax ) or IPR (Rural Property Tax) (4.1%).

Subjective POF indicators show that 38.2% of the population lived in areas affected by violence or vandalism, and 25.3% in areas with environmental problems.

Average per capita spending on public utility services, such as electricity, water and sewage, domestic gas and communication (landline and mobile telephony, subscription TV and Internet), amounted to R$ 114,12. The biggest spending were on communication (R$ 45.16) and electricity services (R$ 39.64).

Households in the lowest income decile spent most (42.2%) of their budget on electricity, whereas those in the highest decile spent 53.7% of their budget on communication services.

Per capita spending on health reached R$ 133.23, with R$ 90.91 as monetary and R$ 42.32 as non-monetary spending. The latter represented 20.9% of the overall spending on medicines and pharmaceuticals and 37.6% of healthcare services.

A total 64.4% of the population lived in households where none of the members had health insurance.

The average per capita spending on education was R$ 120.16 in 2017-2018, being R$ 68.13 (56.7%) monetary and R$ 52.03 (43.3%) non-monetary.

Housing represents highest spending in households

In Brazil, total per capita household spending in 2017-2018 was R$ 1,667.90. From that total, R$ 1,554.06 correspond to current expenses, R$ 63.61 due to rise of assets and R$ 50.22 to the fall of liabilities. Spending amounted to R$ 1,370.53. Among those, Housing has the biggest share (R$ 466.34), followed by Transportation (R$ 234.08) and Food (R$ 219.44).

When the reference person is a woman, overall per capita spending (R$ 1.524,17) is 12.4% lower than in households with a male reference person (R$ 1,764.73). The difference reaches 32.2% in Transportation, with per capita spending of R$ 268.96 in households with a male reference person and R$ 182.29 with a female one. 

About 47.0% was the difference in per capita between households with a white reference person (R$ 2,279.19) and a black or brown reference person (R$ 1,207.11). Some highlights are contrasts in housing (R$ 330. 3 for blacks or browns and R$ 644.31 for whites), health assistance (R$ 94.99 for blacks or browns and R$ 183.94 for whites) and food (R$ 181.60 and R$ 269.44, respectively), besides the difference between persons without schooling (R$ 776.29) with a higher education degree (R$ 4,230.44).

Almost ¼ of the disposable income oh households is non-monetary  

Average Per Capita Household Disposable Income (RDFPC) in Brazil in 2018 was R$ 1,650.78. That amount is defined by the sum of monetary earnings and the goods and services acquired by non-monetary means, not considering amount paid in direct taxes, social contributions and other deductions.

Monetary contribution amounted to R$ 1,434.15 or 86.9%. The non-monetary share was R$ 379.97 or 23%. Direct taxes, contributions and other deductions fell by R$ 163.34 or 9.9%. So, almost 1/4 of the disposable income is composed of non-monetary income.

Minimum income, a household’s minimum income to make ends meet for a month, according to subjective evaluation, was R$ 1,331.57, or 80.7% of the disposable income.

Income of the 10% riches tis three times that of the 40% with the lowest earnings.

In the ranking of population by income deciles, the average RDFPC figures are R$ 244.62, in the first decile; R$ 463.22, in the second one; R$ 636.66, in the third; R$ 808.40 in the fourth and R$ 6,294.83, in the last decile. So, the ratio 10+/40- is 2.92, which indicates the 10% of the population with the highest earnings have almost three times the cumulative income of the first four deciles.

Households with a black or brown reference person represent 57.2% of the population but have only 41.8% of the RDFPC. For that subgroup, per capita household figures are, on average, R$ 1,206.76 for disposable income and R$ 1,031.51 for minimum income.

Based on the RDFPC of POF 2017-2018, Brazil’s Gini coefficient is 0.483.

For the lower-income population, minimum income is twice the disposable income

Stratification by income deciles also showed that, from the 1st to the 3rd decile, minimum income figures surpass disposable income. In the tenth one, minimum income (R$ 470.29) was almost twice as the disposable income (R$ 244.60).

In the fourth decile, the minimum (R$ 789.59) and disposable incomes (R$ 808.40) were close. In the last decile, minimum income was R$ 4,001.09 and disposable income, R$ 6,294.83.

The non-monetary component represented a significant part of the RDFPC in all the subgroups. Participation was smaller in the case whose reference person was an employer (14.4%). Bigger contributions (above 30.0%) come from household where the reference person is an adult with at least one child (39.3%), a domestic  worker (33.9%), and in the first four deciles (42.5%, 37.3%, 34.1% and 31.9%, respectively).

Households with a black or brown reference person have smaller disposable income

When disposable income for the 5% with the smallest income is considered and for the overall average, it is observed that average figures vary significantly by population subgroup.

When the reference person is black or brown, the average income in the 5% poorest group is R$ 141.98, a figure that is below that of households with a white reference person (R$ 245.82). That cumulative difference causes the average subgroup to reach figures of R$ 1,206.76 for the subgroup whose reference person was reportedly black or brown and R$ 2,241.80 for those with a white reference person.

77.8% of poverty is observed in households with a black or brown reference person

POF also brings an analysis of poverty in the country, based on thresholds of R$ 1.90/day and R$ 5.50/day, according to purchase power parity in 2011 and deflated for January 15, 2018. In Brazil, 1.4% of the population lived below the threshold of R$ 1.90 and 12.1%, the threshold of R$ 5.50.

The rural area has 14.7% of the population, but accounts for 34.6% of all the poverty. Considering stratification by Major Region, the North holds 8.6% of the Brazilian population and accounts for 26.1% of all poverty.

In the analysis by color or race, 77.8% of all poverty is found in the population whose reference persons is black or brown. By level of schooling, 66.5% of all poverty is in the population whose reference person had incomplete elementary school or no schooling. Considering occupation, 81.7% of poverty was concentrated in persons whose households has as a reference person a worker without a formal contract, a self-employed workers or an unemployed person.

Average spending on housing in urban areas was R$ 249.32 and in rural ones, R$ 15.34

In Brazil, the per capita average spending on housing, according to POF 2017-2018, was R$ 264.66, being R$ 249.32 in the urban area and R$ 15. in the rural area. The calculation of that average encompasses rent, conomimium fees, IPTU or IPR. Highest expenses come from estimated rent (R$ 202.08 or 76.4%), that is, rental figures proposed by the interviewee, in privately-owned or lent housing units, followed by rents (12.7%), condominium fees (6.8%) and IPTU or IPR (4.1%).

The Southeast concentrates 57.7% (or R$ 152.72) of household spending, due to figure of R$ 112.01 estimated for rent, whereas the other Major Regions make up R$ 40,70 of that item.

Almost all persons with excessively high spending on rent live in urban areas 

In Brazil, 1.7% of the population live in households where rents surpassed 1/3 of the net household income, which is considered ively high amount. Most of that population (1.6%) live in urban areas and in the Southeast (1.0%).

High household density takes place when the average number of residents per room surpasses three. The proportion on the population that lives in such conditions is 5.7%, with 4.6% in the urban area, and 1.1% in the rural area. That distribution is concentrated in the Southeast (2.4%) and Northeast (1.4%). Also, high household density reaches 4.7% of the persons in housing units with more than one adult and ne child, and 4.2% of the persons whose households have a black or brown reference person. 

Almost 1/4 of the population lives in housing units with some inadequacy

A household was considered inadequate when it had at least one of the following characteristics: masonry or stucco without coating as the predominant on walls; reused wood or other type of material; n concrete coverage on the roof, only zinc, aluminum or other types of material; cement, earth or other as the predominant type of material on the floor; husehold without a bathroom for exclusive use, that is, a batheroom used by more than one household or no bathroom at all. 

So, 23.5% of the population did not live in a fully adequate housing unit, 15.7% in the urban area and 7.8% in the rural one. The Northeast and Southeast regions are the ones that have most persons living in households with some type of inadequacy, 10.6% and 5.8%.

When the household reference person is white, the proportion of households with at least one type of inadequacy is 6.2%. Nevertheless, for black and brown persons that proportion is 17.0%.

Inadequacies do not prevent positive evaluations of the housing

The evaluation of living standards with regard to  housing showed that, of the 1.6% of persons with a high spending on rent, 1.0% rank their housing standard as good; 0.5% as satisfactory and 0.20% as bad. From the 5.7% of the population living in high-density households, 2.6% ranked that standard as good; 1.8% as satisfactory and 1.2% as bad. For persons living in housing units with some type of inadequacy (23.5%), the evaluation was good for  12.6%, satisfactory for 7.3% and bad for 3.7%.

Almost 40% of the population lived in areas affected by violence or vandalism

The subjective indicators asses the opinion of the household reference person regarding five risk factors in the household:  environmental problems caused by traffic or industry; proximity to polluted rivers, lakes, bays, etc.; area subject to floods; location on hillsides or area subject to landslides; and violence or vandalism in the area of residence.

Violence or vandalism affect 38.2% of the population in Brazil. Even in the South, where there is a smaller proportion of persons in risk, the percentage is still high (29.4%). In the North, 42.7% of the population faces that problem, and the other Major Regions have rates about 40%.

Smoke, smell, noise and other environmental problems caused by traffic or industry were reported by 25.3% of the persons, being 23.3% in the urban sector. That decision affects in the Southeast, at most, 11.5%, and in the Northeast, 6.5%.

Households close to polluted rivers, bays, lakes, or dams are the home of 15.8% of persons in the country. The North Region is the most populous in the country, but it has the biggest proportion  (19.8%) of persons affected by fresh water pollution.

Household spending is highest on communication and electricity

In 2017-2018, per capita average spending on public utility services, such as electricity, water and sewage, gas and communication (landline and mobile telephony, subscription TV and Internet) was R$ 114.12, with the biggest spending on communication services (R$ 45.16) and electricity (R$ 39.64).

Among the Major Regions, the Southeast concentrated half of the total spending on public utility (R$ 58.07). The South, Southeast and Central West spend most on communication. In the North and Northeast, the biggest spending was on electricity. The lowest spending was also registered in the North, on water and sewage services (R$ 0.62).

In households with a male reference person (R$ 68.68), the share of public utility services was bigger than in those where a woman was the reference person (R$ 45.44). When the reference person was White, spending reached R$ 59.63. In the case of blacks and browns, R$ 52.55.

Persons in the lowest income deciles spent most of their budget on electricity, being 42.2% in the first income decile. On the other hand, communication services made most of the expenses in households  with lower incomes, 53.7% for families in the last income decile.

1/3 of household spending on health is non-monetary

Per capita spending on healthcare, in 2017-2018, was R$ 133.23, being R$ 90.91 (68.2%) monetary, when there is cash disbursement for the acquisition of the good or service. Non-monetary spending was R$ 42.32 (31.7%). In this case, the product or service is provided by the state o other entities.

Most of the spending was on healthcare (R$ 86.48) and the   remainder on medicines and pharmaceuticals (R$ 46.75). Non-monetary spending represented 20.9% of the overall spending on medicines and pharmaceuticals and monetary spending, for 79.1%.

Households with elderly persons accounted for 35% of the overall healthcare spending. Households with children, for 29% of the total. In terms of spending on medicines and pharmaceuticals, the bigger share of non-monetary contributions came from households with elderly persons, whereas in the case of medical services, househlds with children. 

Lack of money is the main reason for limited access to healthcare

About 26.2% of the persons belonged to households with limited access to healthcare services and 16.4%, to medicines. Lack of Money was the main reason reported for limited access to healthcare (16.9%) and for acquisition of medicines (11.0%). Another reason was lack of the product or service.

Households with children had more limited access to healthcare (12.9%) and medicines (8.4%) and households with elderly persons (5.7% and 3.7%, respectively).

Persons in the four lowest earnings rages had higher levels of limited access to healthcare when compared with households with highest earnings. Regarding limited access to medicines, 9.0% of the persons were in the 40% with the lowest earnings, whereas 0.6% were in the 10% with the highest earnings. Regarding limited access to services, distance was even bigger, since 12.8% were in the 40% with the lowest earnings and 1.2% in the 10% with the highest income.

18.1% of the population live in households where all members have health insurance

Only 18.1% of the persons lived in households where all members had health insurance and 17.4% where at least one person did. Most of them, however, lived in households where no one had health insurance (64.4%).

Among persons who lived in households where all members had health insurance, 10.3% lived in the Southeast, and 0.6%, in the North. On the other hand, 23.5% of the persons in households where no one had health insurance lived in the Southeast and 4.7% in the Central West.

In 13.2% of the households with elderly persons, none of the members had health insurance.

Among households with health insurance for all the members, 10.5% were in the group with the 20% highest earnings and only 1% of them were at the other extreme, that is, 20% with the lowest earnings.

44.6% of the persons live in households which rank their own health as good

In 2017-2018, 44.6% of the persons lived in households which ranked health as good, 28.9% as satisfactory and 26.5% as bad. Among those that ranked health as bad, 22.1% lived in urban areas and 4.3% in rural areas.

Health received different evaluations among the Major Regions. The highest percentage of those that ranked it as was in the Southeast (19.7%) and the lowest, in the North (3.3%). The biggest proportion of bad evaluations came from the Southeast (10.3%) and the smallest, in the Central West (1.90%).

Non-monetary spending on education surpasses monetary spending

Average per capita spending on education was R$ 120.16 in 2017-2018. A total R$ 68.13 (56.7%) referred non-monetary spending, without cash disbursement, as it is the case of free public education provided by the state. Monetary spending was R$ 52.03 (43.3%). That refers to cash or foward payment.

Urban area accounted for R$ 111.09 of the average spending on education, whereas rural area accounted for R$ 9.06. In both areas non-monetary spending was significantly higher, but in the rural area, though significantly low amount in reais, non-monetary spending reached 82.3% of the total contribution.

The participation of households in spending on education was R$ 73.62 when the reference person was s man and R$ 46.54 when a woman.  Whites contributed with R$ 61.79 and blacks and browns, with R$ 55.94.

Considering the seven components of spending on education, the non-monetary share was higher in daycare and preschool (63.3%), elementary school (68.5%) and high school (79.6%). Only when it comes to higher education and graduate (59.8%) and other courses (67.7%) did monetary income surpassed non-monetary income.

60.9% of the population lives in households which rank education as good

In Brazil, 60.9% of the persons were residents of households which ranked education as good; 27.5% of them ranked it as satisfactory and 11.7%, as bad. Among those ranking education was, 42% lived in the Southeast (25.6% of the overall population), the same Major Region where 44.4% of the persons lived in households where education was ranked as bad (5.2% of the population).