1.
Introduction
*This paper is part of the research project Strengthening Mobility and Entrepreneurship: A Case for
The Middle Classes financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Research Department.
The authors would like to thank Hugo opo, Virginia Lasio, Gustavo Solorzano, and the participants
of the discussion seminars for helpful comments.
**Corresponding author and professor at the ESPAE Graduate School of Management, Escuela Superior
Politcnica del Litoral, Malecn 100 y Loja, Guayaquil, Ecuador. Email: xordenan@espol.edu.ec.
***Researcher, ESPAE Graduate School of Management, Escuela Superior Politcnica del Litoral.
Email: ramavill@espol.edu.ec.
doi 10.7764/LAJE.51.2.307
308
309
derived from the study will not be very relevant. We propose that the
existence of idiosyncratic cohort effects should be taken as an indicator
of accurately constructed cohorts. Thus, using OLS to estimate the
proposed model without accounting for the unobserved cohort effect
will result in positively biased estimators.
An unbiased estimator of the relevant model parameters is obtained
through the use of traditional dynamic panel estimation methods (like
the two-step least squares estimation or a more efficient estimator
obtained by GMM methods). Because OLS is expected to provide a
positive bias in the estimator if the idiosyncratic component exists,
it provides a useful way to check the validity of the cohorts studied.
We first calculate an unconditional convergence model and then
condition on entrepreneurship1. We find an unconditional convergence
of 0.86slightly below the 0.90 for the region (Cuesta et al., 2011).
When entrepreneurship is included, the convergence decreases to 0.77,
indicating that entrepreneurship has a significant effect on income
mobility. Moreover, as shown in the Results section, we find a higher
mobility effect on the female cohorts, suggesting that entrepreneurship
is particularly important to womens social mobility.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews related
literature. Section 3 presents the data treatment and the construction of
the pseudo-panel. Section 4 presents the unconditional and conditional
mobility models and contains a discussion of the econometric techniques
used to estimate the model and the assumptions made. Section 5
presents the results and the analysis, and Section 6 concludes.
2.
Literature review
310
Because of the lack of extensive panel data for Latin America, the
study of income mobility and its determinants in the region has
only been undertaken recently with the development and increasing
popularity of econometric techniques to remedy this problem. Cuesta
et al. (2011) use a pseudo-panel approach to study differences in
mobility across the Latin American region, finding a high level of
unconditional mobility and significant differences across countries.
They also find that measurement of unconditional income mobility
tends to underestimate the true mobility experienced by households
in an economy. Canelas (2010) also uses this technique to measure
poverty, inequality, and mobility in Ecuador and finds a decrease in
poverty but persistent inequality between 2000 and 2009.
With the recent development of initiatives to compare entrepreneurship
across countries such as the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor or the
World Bank Enterprise Data/Survey, research in this area has begun
to study the effect that entrepreneurship has on income mobility and
to what extent this translates into overall economic growth. Carree and
Thurik (2005) provide a survey on the literature linking entrepreneurship
with economic growth. Regarding the effect that entrepreneurship
has on income mobility, Quadrini (2005), using the Panel Study of
Income Dynamics (a national survey conducted annually on a sample
of U.S. families since 1968), finds that entrepreneurs experience greater
upward mobility as they have a greater probability of moving to higher
wealth classes and that this is not only a consequence of their higher
incomes. But this does not hold for all types of entrepreneurship. For
example, Shane (2009) uses data from several developed countries to
show that promoting a large number of start-ups is not an effective
public policy, since start-ups do not create many jobs or significantly
contribute to economic growth. However, the most common view found
in the literature is that there is a particular type of entrepreneurship
that is important to improving economic performance that is generally
identified as high-growth startup business.
As Lederman et al. (2014) point out, policy makers should promote
entrepreneurship because it is a fundamental driver of growth and
development. The relative prevalence of necessity-based entrepreneurship
in Latin American countries makes it very important to evaluate and
determine the overall effect that public policy oriented toward encouraging
entrepreneurship will have on the equality and welfare of a society.
However, there is limited literature that discusses entrepreneurships
effect on income mobility. Some authors, such as Kantis et al. (2002)
311
3.
312
313
314
1934zi<1942
1942zi<1949
1949zi<1954
1954zi<1958
1958zi<1962
1962zi<1966
1966zi<1971
1971zi<1977
zi1977
315
> 10
316
350
300
300
250
250
200
200
150
150
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
50
2003
50
2003
100
100
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
100
2004
200
2004
300
2004
400
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003
500
2003
600
2003
1934-1942
1942-1949
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
200
200
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
100
2003
100
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
1949-1954
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
317
Figure1. (continued)
Before MAD treatment
2010
2009
2008
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
200
2007
400
2006
600
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005
800
2003
1000
2004
1954-1958
2010
2009
2008
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
200
2007
400
2006
600
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2005
800
2003
1000
2004
1958-1962
1962-1966
700
600
500
400
300
200
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
100
2004
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1966-1971
2010
100
2009
200
100
2008
300
200
2007
400
300
2006
500
400
2005
600
500
2003
700
600
2004
700
318
Figure1. (continued)
Before MAD treatment
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
100
2003
100
2003
200
200
After1977
1000
600
800
500
400
600
300
400
200
200
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
100
2003
319
300
250
150
200
100
150
100
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2004
50
50
1934-1942
300
250
200
150
100
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
50
2003
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1942-1949
500
400
300
200
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
100
2004
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1949-1954
2010
100
2009
200
100
2008
300
200
2007
400
300
2006
500
400
2005
600
500
2003
700
600
2004
700
320
Figure2. (continued)
Before MAD treatment
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
100
2009
200
100
2008
300
200
2007
400
300
2006
500
400
2005
600
500
2004
700
600
2003
700
2003
1954-1958
1958-1962
2010
100
2009
200
100
2008
300
200
2007
400
300
2006
500
400
2005
600
500
2004
700
600
2003
700
1962-1966
700
600
600
500
500
400
400
300
300
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
100
2003
100
2003
200
200
1966-1971
100
2010
100
2009
200
2008
200
2007
300
2006
400
300
2005
400
2004
500
2003
500
321
Figure2. (continued)
Before MAD treatment
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
2004
100
2005
200
2005
300
2004
400
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2003
500
2004
600
2003
1971-1977
After1977
500
400
300
200
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2003
2004
100
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
69
69
67
71
1971z<1977
z1977
69
67
68
66
1962z<1966
68
69
1958z<1962
1966z<1971
67
70
66
70
1949z<1954
64
64
1942z<1949
1954z<1958
58
61
56
59
z<1934
2004
2003
1934z<1942
(as a percentage)
71
70
68
68
70
67
65
62
55
56
2005
75
69
66
73
71
68
66
61
56
54
2006
70
68
67
68
67
67
66
61
61
53
2007
Male households
70
67
66
67
69
68
68
61
60
53
2008
73
70
66
67
63
67
63
59
60
53
2009
73
68
66
66
66
66
63
58
59
54
2010
84
76
77
72
78
81
75
71
68
59
2003
Urban ratio
84
73
76
76
80
81
75
74
67
63
2004
86
80
78
78
78
80
79
72
62
64
2005
77
74
82
79
76
77
79
73
63
66
2006
84
77
79
78
83
80
77
71
65
62
2007
Female households
82
71
78
76
84
75
77
72
67
63
2008
86
82
81
77
78
74
74
72
66
62
2009
83
82
80
77
79
73
76
72
71
63
2010
322
LATIN AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS | Vol. 51 No. 2 (Nov, 2014), 307341
1971z<1977
z1977
10
1966z<1971
13
12
1958z<1962
15
1954z<1958
1962z<1966
13
12
1942z<1949
1949z<1954
11
13
z<1934
2004
2003
1934z<1942
(as a percentage)
10
10
12
12
12
13
11
2005
10
13
12
16
14
13
11
2006
10
10
12
12
11
2007
Male households
10
11
10
11
11
13
2008
10
10
2009
2010
2003
10
2004
Entrepreneurship ratio
2005
10
2006
2007
Female households
2008
2009
2010
323
79
86
91
85
84
79
1966z<1971
1971z<1977
z1977
82
84
85
90
1958z<1962
80
77
1954z<1958
1962z<1966
82
81
73
78
1949z<1954
1934z<1942
1942z<1949
69
88
78
76
z<1934
2004
2003
79
83
89
83
90
80
78
85
88
76
2005
98
87
85
82
81
78
82
79
87
71
2006
90
86
88
80
88
82
86
80
72
72
2007
Male households
77
86
93
92
84
89
79
80
77
76
2008
82
86
89
94
78
82
87
82
70
62
2009
90
82
86
92
81
90
80
69
77
68
2010
86
95
66
55
61
61
84
53
26
37
2003
60
93
67
79
84
81
74
66
35
52
2004
100
75
60
82
72
57
75
70
34
30
2005
70
87
86
96
85
58
66
50
52
49
2006
79
100
70
71
74
84
79
63
58
58
2007
Female households
62
82
96
90
84
80
44
80
45
40
2008
74
87
83
95
88
81
39
56
49
21
2009
87
90
97
87
77
66
40
59
39
42
2010
324
LATIN AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS | Vol. 51 No. 2 (Nov, 2014), 307341
4.
325
ln(yc,t)=1ln(yc,t1)+c,t
For ease of exposition, the logarithm of the income variable for each
cohort will still be represented as yc,t.
Fields and Ok (1999) demonstrate that this measure of income
mobility has the desired set of properties (scale invariance, symmetry,
multiplicability, and additive separability).
+5 X 1c(t),t+6 X 2c(t)+c,t
326
where
yc,t represents the Neperian logarithm of the average household income
of cohort c in period t. The income variable was previously deflated
by taking into consideration the purchasing power parity (PPP) index
reported by the World Bank to allow for inter-country comparison.
c,t
c,t=c+uc,t
yc ,t 1
= 1 + 2 c ,t 1 + 4 fc
327
where
1 represents the part of income convergence that is only explained
by past income.
2 is the effect that a marginal increase in the entrepreneurship
percentage in the cohort has on its income convergence.
4 represents the variation in income convergence experienced by
female cohorts.
If thenumber ofobservations in each cohort is sufficiently large, yc,t,
X 1c(t),t and X 2c(t) will provide accurate estimators of the true cohort
means. An unbiased estimator of the relevant model parameters can
be obtained through traditional dynamic panel estimation methods
(like the two-step least squares estimation or a more efficient estimator
obtained by GMM methods).
c,t,
+5 X 1c(t),t+6 X 2c(t)+c+uc,t
(1)
328
E (
c,t c,t1 )=0
E (c,tsu
c,t )=0
s>0
(3)
This means that the error term may be correlated with contemporaneous
or future entrepreneurship levels. This assumption is made because
entrepreneurship is believed to be endogenous, as it is difficult to establish
a causal relationship between this variable and the contemporaneous
average household income for each cohort. This assumption also serves
as a source of instruments to account for the endogeneity problem
derived from the described nature of entrepreneurship.
The time-variant cohort covariates are assumed to be exogenous, but
not strictly so.
E (X 1c(t),tsu
c,t )=0
s0
(4)
(5)
iccC
(6)
329
(1/(T1))
c,t1 term in the transformed error. This bias decreases
as the time frame T becomes larger; hence, the within estimators
are asymptotically consistent over time. Bond (2002) points out
that these different directions in the bias of both OLS and within
estimators provide useful bounds on the accuracy of any other
theoretical superior estimator proposed.
330
+4 (fcyc,t1)+5X 1c(t),t+
c,t
(7)
where
yc,t1=yc,t1yc,t2
As first differences are applied, any time-invariant regressor is also
eliminated and can no longer be estimated. It can easily be shown
that the yc,t1 component in the transformed autoregressive term is
3. This method requires an additional assumption that the deviation of the first observation from the
steady state is uncorrelated with the fixed effect.
331
5.
Results
OLS estimation
GMM estimation
yc,t1
0.476***
(0.05998)
0.923***
(0.02993)
0.865***
(0.08274)
Constant
3.438***
(0.38695)
0.559***
(0.19341)
332
Statistic
Arellano-Bond test
2.95
0.003
Sargan test*
0.03
0.870
Hansen test*
0.05
0.824
Only one cohort covariant was considered for the X 1c (t),t vector: the
average number of residents whose income represents more than 25%
of their household income for cohort c in period t. This measure
is considered to be much more volatile over time than any other
333
Within estimation
GMM estimation
0.944***
(0.0385)
0.652***
(0.10039)
0.774***
(0.12009)
-0.370***
(0.10023)
-0.164*
(0.08786)
-0.250*
(0.12764)
0.002
(0.00608)
-0.278**
(0.10851)
-0.297*
(0.15998)
X 1c(t),t
0.055
(0.09872)
1.423***
(0.20309)
2.238***
(0.44658)
c,t
3.088***
(0.56992)
0.891
(0.57498)
1.794**
(0.84013)
Constant
0.293
(0.25073)
1.030**
(0.46863)
yc,t1
c,t1yc,t1
fcyc,t1
yc ,t 1
334
yc ,t 1
= 0.4766 0.25c ,t 1
p -value
Arellano-Bond test
1.59
0.111
Sargan test*
33.4
0.001
Hansen test *
17.15
0.192
E (
c,t Xc(t),ts)=0 s1
E (
c,t yc,t2)=0 t3
E (
c,t c,t s)=0 s>0
E (c,tsu
c,t )=0 s>1
(X 1c(t),tsu
c,t )=0 s1
E (
c,t yc,t2)=0 t3
yc,ts s3,
c,tsyc,ts
fc yc,t1 3s5
c,t2
X 1c(t),t1
335
3s4,
6.
Conclusion
336
337
References
Acemoglu, D. and F. Zilibotti (1997), Was Prometheus unbound by chance?
Risk, Diversification and Growth 105(4), 70951.
Acs, Z. and J.E. Amors (2008), Entrepreneurship and competitiveness dynamics
in Latin America, Small Business Economics 31(3), 30522.
Alesina, A. and R. Perotti (1996), Income distribution, political instability and
investment, European Economic Review 40(6): 120328.
Amors, J.E. and O. Cristi (2010), Poverty, human development and
entrepreneurship, in Minitti, M., ed., The dynamics of entrepreneurship:
Theory and evidence. Oxford University Press.
Amors, J.E., A. Leguina, and I. Gutirrez (2010), Anlisis de la actividad
emprendedora en sectores de comercio en Amrica Latina: Una aproximacin
desde el Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Santiago, Chile: Universidad del
Desarrollo-FUNDES.
Arellano, M., and S. Bond (1991), Some tests of specification for panel data:
Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations, The
Review of Economic Studies58(2): 27797.
Arteaga, M.E. and V. Lasio (2009), Empresas dinmicas en Ecuador: Factores de
xito y competencias de sus fundadores, Academia, Revista Latinoamericana
de Administracin 42: 4967.
Arteaga, M.E. (2011), Perfil de los emprendedores de la regin 5 (unpublished
manuscript). Guayaquil, Ecuador: CEEMP, Escuela Superior Politcnica
del Litoral.
Autio, E. (2007), Global report on high-growth entrepreneurship. Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor: Babson College and London Business School.
Blundell, R. and S. Bond (1998), Initial conditions and moment restrictions
in dynamic panel data models,Journal of Econometrics 87(1): 11543.
Bond, S. 2002. Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods
and practice, WorkingPaper 09/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.
Carree, M.A., A.J van Stel, A.R. Thurik, and A.R.M. Wennekers (2002), Economic
development and business ownership: an analysis using data of 23 OECD
countries in the period 1976-1996, Small Business Economics 19: 27190.
Canelas, C. (2010), Poverty, inequality and income mobility: The case of Ecuador.
A pseudo-panel approach. Doctoral dissertation, Paris School of Economics.
Castellani, F. and G. Paret (2010), Social mobility in Latin America, OECD
Development Centre.
Cuesta, J., H. opo, and G. Pizzolito (2011), Using pseudo-panes to estimate
income mobility in Latin America, Review of Income and Wealth 57(2):
22446.
Deaton, A (1985), Panel data from a series of cross-sections, Journal of
Econometrics 30: 10926.
338
Doepke, M. and F. Zilibotti (2005), Social class and the spirit of capitalism,
Journal of the European Economic Association 3: 51624.
Easterly, W. (2001), The middle class consensus and economic development,
Journal of Economic Growth 6(4): 31735.
Fields, G. S. (2008). Income mobility (electronic version). Retrieved in October
2012 from Cornell University ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.
cornell.edu/
Fields, G. and E. Ok (1996a), The meaning and measurement of income mobility,
Journal of Economic Theory 71: 34977.
Franco, R., M. Hopenhayn, and A. Leon (2011), Crece y cambia la clase media
en Amrica Latina: Una puesta al da, Revista Cepal 103: 726.
Heckman, J. and R. Robb (1985), Alternative models for evaluating the impact
of interventions: An overview Journal of Econometrics 30: 23967.
Hisrich, R.D. and G.C. Brush (1986), The woman entrepreneur: Starting, financing
and managing a successful new business. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington
Books, Inc.
Instituto Nacional de Estadsticas y Censos (INEC) 2005, Las condiciones de
vida de los ecuatorianos, encuesta de condiciones de vida quinta ronda.
Obtained from www.inec.gob.ec. on June 2, 2011.
IPSA Group (2010), Ecuador Overview 2010.
Kantis H., M. Ishido, and M. Komori (2002), Entrepreneurship in emerging
economies: The creation and development of new firms in Latin America
and East Asia, Inter-American Development Bank.
Kantis H., P. Angelelli, and V. Moori (2005), Desarrollo emprendedor: Amrica
Latina y la experiencia internacional, Inter-American Development Bank
and FUNDES Internacional.
Kelley, D.J., N. Bosma, and J.E. Amors (2011), Global Entrepreneurship Monitor:
Global report 2010, Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
Kharas, H. (2010), The emerging middle class in developing countries, OECD
Development Centre Working Paper No. 285.
Lasio, V. G. Caicedo, X. Ordeana, and R. Villa (2014), Global entrepreneurship
monitor Ecuador 2013, ESPAE, Escuela Superior Politcnica del Litoral.
Lasio, V., M. E. Arteaga, and G. Caicedo (2009), Global entrepreneurship
monitor Ecuador 2008. ESPAE, Escuela Superior Politcnica del Litoral.
. (2010), Global entrepreneurship monitor Ecuador 2009, ESPAE, Escuela
Superior Politcnica del Litoral.
Lederman, D., J. Messina, S. Pienknagura, and J. Rigolini (2014), Latin American
entrepreneurs: Many firms but little innovation, World Bank.
Moffitt, R. (1990), Estimating dynamic models with a time series of repeated
cross section, Brown University mimeo.
339
Nicolaou, N., S. Shane, L. Cherkas, J. Hunkin, and T.D. Spector (2008), Is the
tendency to engage in entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science
54(1): 16779.
OECD (2010), Family affair: Intergenerational social mobility across OECD
countries, in Economic policy reforms: Going for growth.
OECD (2010), Latin American Economic Outlook, OECD Development Centre.
Pressman, S. (2007), The decline of the middle class: An international perspective,
Journal of Economic Issues 40(1): 181200.
Quadrini, V. (2000), Entrepeneurship, saving and social mobility, Review of
Economic Dynamics 3(1): 140.
Ravallion, M. (2009), The developing worlds bulging (but vulnerable) middle
class, Policy Research Working Paper Series 4816.
Revista Lderes (2011), La clase media creci su poder de compra en cuatro
aos, www.lideres.ec.
Shane, S. (2009), Why encouraging more people to become entrepreneurs is bad
public policy, Small Business Economics 33(2): 14149.
Solimano, A. (2008), The middle class and the development process: International
evidence, Macroeconoma para el Desarrollo 65.
Torche, F. and L.F. Lpez-Calva (2010) Stability and vulnerability of the Latin
American middle class, New York University, unpublished manuscript.
Unger, J., A. Rauch, M. Frese, and N. Rosebusch (2011), Human capital and
entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review, Journal of Business
Venturing 26: 34158.
Valdez, R. (2011), Clase media: La consentida de los proveedores inmobiliarios
en Ecuador, Amrica Economa Online, www.americaeconomia.com.
Verbeek, M. (1996), Pseudo-panel data, in Matyas, L. and P. Servestre, eds.,
The econometrics of panel data. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Verbeek, M. and T. Nijman (1992), Can cohort data be treated as genuine panel
data? Empirical Economics 17: 923.
World Economic Forum (2010), Global Competitiveness Report.
18890
657
580
495
435
360
346
356
329
252
209
1487
1601
1523
1510
1353
1412
1577
1731
1639
1038
2004
17835
642
530
429
381
310
314
307
309
258
225
1401
1325
1438
1518
1251
1337
1548
1595
1497
1220
2005
18259
680
505
486
434
305
356
337
312
211
195
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Total
1521
1399
1535
1549
1150
1491
1506
1655
1671
961
2003
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Cohorts
18345
620
570
482
415
353
317
319
391
267
279
1328
1392
1420
1501
1242
1445
1339
1803
1515
1347
2006
18409
526
500
522
417
342
349
361
366
303
332
1156
1205
1524
1357
1198
1200
1367
1728
1794
1862
2007
Years analyzed
19132
612
536
582
408
342
427
386
456
350
368
1176
1259
1682
1308
1183
1385
1402
1723
1789
1758
2008
19051
564
506
625
459
401
417
350
439
370
406
1145
1315
1645
1388
1247
1382
1328
1725
1552
1787
2009
Table A1. Distribution of households sampled by gender and date of birth cohorts
Appendix
Men
Women
20390
589
602
727
531
453
442
435
467
432
473
1121
1405
1755
1426
1322
1406
1516
1774
1581
1933
2010
150311
4890
4329
4348
3480
2866
2968
2851
3069
2443
2487
10335
10901
12522
11557
9946
11058
11583
13734
13038
11906
Total
340
LATIN AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS | Vol. 51 No. 2 (Nov, 2014), 307341
2859031
2998930
96330
86569
81541
74104
63672
59247
59559
50106
37220
33381
3067109
99457
87160
74399
72840
59513
54766
59351
60060
48858
42505
217222
205626
237137
258934
219791
234392
268285
270947
279140
216726
2005
Total
99501
76802
80186
72619
55332
58501
53132
52854
35325
30134
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
213682
238828
241450
242831
220244
224501
255779
276059
277079
166747
222185
195668
244078
239114
179716
236965
240246
264702
267446
154527
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2004
2003
Men
Women
Cohorts
3168135
102256
92989
84685
81452
68102
57536
61261
80833
45945
47290
204647
219123
227344
260577
225065
253949
247245
303896
263016
240924
2006
3278284
88582
84152
95134
82510
63566
70491
67628
68931
58482
63648
172527
198276
250774
235487
216272
219800
248280
317966
328642
347137
2007
Years analyzed
3388597
100515
89649
105482
78154
61199
89688
74120
85654
62280
70016
181443
201554
276392
234598
212070
247841
257454
304104
327426
328959
2008
3402560
97725
88349
114474
81774
71520
78716
69591
85545
74424
82707
181781
226031
277756
243217
217332
238696
238871
307826
284393
341834
2009
3543144
98631
105824
129457
92864
82187
84324
88904
92480
82875
93536
171545
226984
284957
246474
218750
241102
260530
310869
277867
352987
2010
Table A2. Distribution of the households weighted by gender and date of birth cohorts
25705790
782996
711495
765357
636317
525090
553269
533544
576463
445407
463217
1565031
1712091
2039888
1961232
1709240
1897246
2016690
2356368
2305008
2149840
Total
341