The KwaZulu-Natal Income Dynamics Study (KIDS) third wave: methods, first findings and an agenda for future research

Figures & data

Figure 1: Dynamics of the sample from 1993 to 2004

Table 1: Characteristics of 1998 households by whether interviewed in 2004

Characteristic (mean of households' values)	Core household(s) interviewed in 2004	Other household(s) interviewed in 2004	No households interviewed in 2004	All 1998 households
Number of household members	8.7	7.8	4.9	7.6
Number of resident members	7.0	6.4	4.3	6.2
Per capita expenditure (rand)	479	501	661	528
% below poverty line	56	56	44	53
% of residents of working age	50	52	62	53

Figure 2: Age distribution of resident members of core (C) and next-generation (K) households compared with the 2001 Census population (Africans and Indians in KwaZulu-Natal)

Table 2: Attrition by 2004 of household members in 1998 (%)

	Members in 1998	Resident in 1998
Household not traced	17.3	17.9
Household not eligible (no core members)	4.0	3.8
Individual no longer member in 2004	13.4	11.6
Data collected traced in 2004, comprising:	65.2	66.7
Died between waves	6.0	5.9
Non-resident member	7.0	5.7
Resident member	52.2	55.2
Attrition in different sub-groups:
Core individuals	29.6	29.5
Other individuals	36.5	34.6
Men	36.2	34.5
Women	33.6	32.3
Aged 0–19	33.4	32.3
Aged 20–39	40.2	38.5
Aged 40–59	32.2	31.6
Aged 60 +	24.6	23.5
Number of individuals	8547	7304

Figure 3: Distribution of households according to size, core (C) and next-generation (K) households compared with the 2001 Census population (Africans and Indians in KwaZulu-Natal)

Figure 4: Percentage of traced household members dying between waves by age at first wave and sex

Figure 5: Deaths in the panel households by year according to broad age group in 1998

Table 3: 1993 to 2004 transition matrix

		< 0.5 PL	< 1PL	< 1.25 PL	< 1.5PL	< 2.5PL	> 2.5PL
< 0.5PL (n = 129)	% of row	38.0	34.1	10.9	3.1	8.5	5.4
	1993 NE∗	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
	2004 NE	0.3	0.7	1.1	1.4	1.8	3.6
	< 1PL (n = 218)	% of row	26.8	31.9	11.4	10.4	11	8.5
1993 NE		0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.7	0.8
2004 NE		0.3	0.7	1.1	1.4	1.9	4.2
< 1.25 PL (n = 111)		% of row	26.1	27	12.6	1.8	16.2	16.2
	1993 NE	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.2
	2004 NE	0.3	0.7	1.1	1.3	2	5.1
	< 1.5 PL (n = 69)	% of row	11.6	20.3	5.8	7.2	18.8	36.2
1993 NE		1.4	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.4
2004 NE		0.4	0.7	1.1	1.3	1.9	5.3
< 2.5 PL (n = 161)		% of row	10.6	15.5	8.1	4.3	23.6	37.9
	1993 NE	1.9	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.9	2
	2004 NE	0.4	0.8	1.1	1.4	2	5.2
	> 2.5 PL (n = 79)	% of row	1.3	10.1	3.8	3.8	7.6	73.4
1993 NE		4.8	3.5	3	3	3.4	5.2
2004 NE		0.3	0.7	1.1	1.4	2	8.4
∗ NE indicates real per capita expenditures that have been normalised by the Hoogeveen & Özler (2005) poverty line.

Table 4: 1998 to 2004 transition matrix∗

	< 0.5 PL	< 1PL	< 1.25 PL	< 1.5PL	< 2.5PL	> 2.5PL
< 0.5 (n = 221)	40.7 − −	37.6	4.5	3.2 −	8.6 +	5.4 + +
< 1 (n = 275)	25.5 − − −	32.1 −	11.7	8.4	13.5 + +	8.8 + +
< 1.25 (n = 82)	17.3	24.7 − − −	9.9	11.1 −	22.2 + + +	14.8 +
< 1.5 (n = 68)	16.2 + +	16.2 − − −	25 + + +	8.8	13.2	20.6 +
< 2.5 (n = 109)	3.7 −	12.8 − − −	11.9	5.5 −	22.9 −	43.1 + + +
> 2.5 (n = 113)	0	5.3	3.5 −	2.7	11.5 − −	77 + + +
∗Changes from the 1993 to 1998 transition matrix are indicated by ‘ + ’s and ‘-’s. An element which is between 2.5 and 5 percentage points lower is indicated by ‘–’; between 5 and 10 percentage points lower by ‘ − −’; and, greater than 10 percentage point decrease by ‘ − − − ’. Similarly, ‘ + ’ means between 2.5 and 5 percentage higher; ‘ + +’ between 5 and 10 percentage points higher; and ‘ + + + ’ more than 10 percentage points higher.

Table 5: Basic needs indicators for core KIDS households (%)

Year	Have electricity connection	Live in formal house	Piped water supply	Toilet on stand	Own house	Median people/ room
1993	42.5	67.3	37.2	76.6	87.0	1.4
1998	64.8	n/a	41.5	67.2	88.7	1.2
2004	74.5	85.2	50.7	86.3	90.4	1.0

Figure 6: Economic well-being of the next generation

Hoogeveen , J G and ÖZler , B . 2005 . Not separate, not equal: poverty and inequality in post-apartheid South Africa , Ann Arbor : University of Michigan . William Davidson Institute Working Paper No. 739

 Google Scholar