Income

Indicators
Introduction
1. Personal income
2. Income distribution
3. Source of income
4. Household income
5. Discussion
Data sources
References

Return to Mapping inequalities menu

Indicators

PARAMETER	MEASURES
Personal income	Proportion of Māori women receiving less than the national median weekly personal income Proportion of Māori women earning less than the national median hourly earnings
Income distribution	Proportion of Māori women in the lowest income quintile Proportion of Māori women in the highest income quintile
Income source	Proportion of Māori women receiving income from wages and salaries/self-employment Proportion of Māori women receiving income from DPB
Household income	Proportion of Māori women having a household income less than $20,000

Back to top

Introduction

Income sharing
Most of the information in this chapter assumes that income is individual although some information on household income is also presented. Indicators attributing amounts of income to individuals should be interpreted with caution, as in reality income is often shared or used to support others. The extent to which income is shared with others within households is unknown, and is likely to vary widely between households. We also do not know who controls household expenditure. In addition, the relative prevalence of extended families in the Māori population, and the increasing incidence of split and blended families in all sectors of the population, introduce biases into any analyses of individual or household income where household composition is not known.

A 1994 study (Kell Easting & Fleming (1994).) of the degree to which income is shared in New Zealand families showed that this happens in a variety of ways, including pooling of incomes, an allowance system, one partner managing all the income, earners managing their own finances independently, and mixtures of these. Māori, Pacific and Pakeha families use these systems to differing degrees. The wide variations illustrate how little can be assumed about intra-family income sharing.

Back to top

Household and family/whānau
Māori are more likely than non-Māori to live in large families and in shared households. While there are economies of scale in larger households, any given income must be spread more thinly the larger the number of members of the household. This effect is separate from issues of who controls the household income. (Statistics New Zealand (1998a).)

Moreover, many non-Māori first consider themselves as individuals, whereas many Māori first consider themselves in the context of the whānau (Taiapa (1994).) , a broader grouping than the 'family'. Participation in a whānau brings privileges and responsibilities that may impact on how an individual's income is used. (Kell Easting & Fleming (1994).)

Back to top

The data
For individual income, data from the New Zealand Income Survey for the June quarter 2000 was analysed (the survey is only conducted in June quarters). The New Zealand Income Survey was used as it enables analysis by sex and ethnicity. Unless otherwise stated, 'income' is gross and includes earnings from wages and salaries, self-employment, social welfare benefits, and any other sources of income individuals may have, excluding income from investments. This survey samples the population aged 15 and over. It was first carried out in 1997, but Statistics New Zealand advise that 1997 data may not be exactly comparable to other periods due to minor changes in methodology that took place as part of the initial development process. Relative to other periods, income has changed little in the 1997-2000 period however, data for other periods has been included in tables in order to provide an indication of how representative the data for 2000 is.

The New Zealand Income Survey does not collect information on interest and investment income. The Household Economic Survey (HES) provides an indication of the size and distribution of interest and investment income. In the 1997/98 HES year investment income derived in New Zealand made up 5.0% of total regular and recurring income, with 42.0% of people receiving some income from this source. This investment income was not spread evenly through the age groups. Those in the 15-29 year age group received less than 1% of their total income from investment income in the 1997/98 HES year. This compares with 16.0% of total income for those aged 60 and over, with 61.0% of people in this age group receiving some income from this source. Consequently, care should be taken when interpreting the statistics from this survey, especially for those aged 60 and over.

Ideally, data would include the extent to which household income is shared among household members, and it would include lifetime earnings. The latter would reveal a more complete picture of those who have been on low incomes for extended periods, as opposed to those, such as students, who have comparatively short periods on low incomes.

Back to top

1. Personal income

1.1 National median weekly personal income
Position of Māori women: In the June quarter 2000, 60% of Māori women aged 15 and over received less than the national median weekly personal income of $340.

Table C1. Proportions receiving less than the national median (The median is the middle point in a population; 50% of individuals fall above the median and 50% below.) weekly personal income ($340), June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	59%	47%	61%	38%
1998	61%	47%	60%	39%
1999	62%	49%	60%	40%
2000	60%	46%	61%	40%

Source: New Zealand Income Survey June 2000, age standardised.

Table C1 shows that the position of each group in relation to the national median weekly personal income is linked more strongly with gender than with ethnicity. Majorities of both groups of women are below the median, whereas majorities of both groups of men are above it. The difference between the two groups of men is wider than that between the two groups of women, who have similar proportions below the median.

The median dollar value of weekly personal income for each of the four groups is shown in Table C2. It takes into account income from all sources, including social welfare benefits.

Levels of median weekly personal income for each of the four groups considered indicate, among other things, ability to provide for children, repay student loans and save for retirement. Māori and Pacific women and men are more likely to take up a student loan and to borrow a higher proportion of their entitlement than European/Pakeha students are. (Ministry of Education (1999).)

Table C2. Median weekly personal income, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	$249	$330	$242	442
1998	$262	$357	$255	$460
1999	$267	$351	$265	$460
2000	$278	$396	$274	$479

Source: New Zealand Income Survey June 2000, age standardised.

Māori women have a similar median weekly personal income to non-Māori women. However, the median income for both groups of women is well below the national overall median of $340 per week. Although Māori men have a lower median weekly personal income than non-Māori men, the major gap is a gender gap.

Back to top

Weekly income according to age
Median income generally varies according to age. Figure C1 shows the median weekly gross personal income for each of the four groups according to their age group in 2000. (In Figure C1 the sharp rises and falls shown for Māori incomes across different ages result from the small samples used in the New Zealand Income Survey.)

Figure C1. Median weekly personal income by age group, 2000

Source: New Zealand Income Survey June 2000.

Although the pattern will be different for each birth cohort, this gives some indication of income patterns across the life cycle. The median incomes of Māori women and non-Māori women are similar throughout their lifetimes. Between the ages of 25 and 60, median incomes for both groups of men, especially non-Māori men, are considerably higher than for both groups of women.

Back to top

1.2 National median hourly earnings
As the data for this indicator includes only income from wages and salaries, it can provide a measure of differences in earnings from paid employment among different groups.

Position of Māori women: In the June quarter 2000, 66% of Māori women aged 15 and over earned less than the national median of $13.55 per hour.

Table C3. Proportions receiving less than median hourly earnings, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000

 

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	74%	59%	61%	47%
1998	69%	50%	58%	43%
1999	69%	55%	56%	43%
2000	66%	52%	56%	43%

Source: New Zealand Income Survey, June 2000, age standardised.

Māori women as a group have by far the highest proportion earning less than the national median per hour. Māori men are slightly more likely than non-Māori women to earn less than the national hourly median. The disparities between women and men of the same ethnicity are similar to the disparities between the two groups of women and the two groups of men, indicating that the hourly earnings gaps are related to both gender and ethnicity.

The age standardised median hourly earnings rate from wages and salaries for Māori women in the June quarter 2000 was $11.00, the lowest for all groups. The median hourly earnings rate from wages and salaries for non-Māori women was $12.80, for Māori men $13.25, and for non-Māori men $14.91. When these findings are compared with those for median weekly personal income in Table C2 which include income from all sources except investments, it can be seen that while weekly earnings are similar for Māori and non-Māori women, Māori women do not receive comparable returns from the labour market.

Back to top

Hourly earnings according to education
Annual income cannot take account of women's reduced labour force participation when they look after children. Hourly earnings enable analysis that bypasses these issues. An individual's hourly earnings may be affected by their level of education, amongst other factors such as occupation and years of experience. Figure C2 shows the relationship between hourly earnings and highest qualification.

Figure C2.Median hourly earnings for highest qualification, June quarter 2000

Source: New Zealand Income Survey, age standardised.

Data on the highest qualifications of wage and salary earners shows that, after taking the different age structures of the Māori and non-Māori populations into account through age standardisation of the data, Māori men and Māori women have the highest proportions with no qualifications. Of Māori women, 31% have no qualification, compared with 17% of non-Māori women, 35% of Māori men and 19% of non-Māori men. This means that Māori are more likely to have lower hourly earnings and lower income.

While income levels are related to levels of education, the effects are not straightforward. Higher qualifications do not generally bring the same levels of reward for women as they do for men. Māori women have similar hourly earnings to non-Maori women, with the exception of bachelor's degree or higher. For these qualifications, their hourly earnings rise above the earnings of non-Māori women. (These findings in Figure C2 are consistent with Sholeh Maani's results.)

2. Income distribution

2.1 Income quintiles
Position of Māori women: In the June quarter 2000, 18% of Māori women were in the lowest income quintile, and 7% were in the highest income quintile.

Table C4. Proportions in lowest income quintile, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000 

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	20%	13%	25%	15%
1998	20%	14%	26%	15%
1999	17%	15%	25%	15%
2000	18%	12%	25%	15%

Source: New Zealand Income Survey, age standardised.

Table C5. Proportions in highest income quintile, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	5%	19%	11%	32%
1998	6%	20%	10%	15%
1999	5%	19%	11%	30%
2000	7%	20%	11%	30%

 Source: New Zealand Income Survey, age standardised.

Each quintile contains a fifth of the population, when the entire population is ranked in terms of income. Table C4 shows that only non-Māori women are over-represented in the lowest income quintile, while both groups of men are under-represented. The finding that only 18% of Māori women are in the lowest income quintile is unexpected but appears to be consistent across the available time series. If investment income was included the income distribution would be widened in the direction of greater Māori/non-Māori disparities. The most likely explanation for this finding is that, as shown in Table C8 below, Māori women are much more likely than other groups to receive income from the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB). The age standardised upper income limit of the lowest quintile was only $130 per week gross in 2000. This is well below the average DPB payment (discussed below), and below the minimum levels of the unemployment and sickness benefits. It is also likely that a higher proportion of non-Māori women than Māori women are supported by partners with high incomes, and have no personal income. This finding includes such women.

Table C5 shows that only non-Māori men are over-represented in the highest income quintile. Women, particularly Māori women, are under-represented in the highest income quintile. The predominant gap is a gender gap.

Figure C3 provides an overall picture of how income in each group is distributed across the quintiles. It shows a similar pattern for women, both Māori and non-Māori, of over-representation in the bottom three quintiles. Non-Māori men's incomes are over-represented in the upper two quintiles. Māori men's incomes are more likely to be in the middle three quintiles than those of non-Māori men.

Figure C3. Population distribution across income quintiles (1 = lowest quintile) June quarter, 2000

Source: New Zealand Income Survey, age standardised.

Income distribution and the poverty line
Another way to look at income distribution is to consider the proportion of the population who are below a set poverty line. In the absence of an official poverty line, Stephens (1999) and Waldegrave (2000) used focus group methodology to establish a poverty line related to current economic conditions and social policies. The poverty line was estimated at 60% of national median household disposable income. As poverty lines are established by household income, it is not relevant to look at poverty by sex. However, Stephens et al (2000) have looked at poverty by ethnicity (see Table C6). At the 60% threshold, they found that 'Māori children account for 26% of poor children and Pacific Islanders 12%. But at the 50% threshold, Māori children make up 40% of poor children, indicating a far greater severity of poverty for Māori families with dependent children'. (Stephens et al: (2000), p.18)

Table C6. The incidence of poverty: ethnic status, age and poverty threshold, 1998

	50% Threshold		60% Threshold		66% Threshold
Ethnic Groups	Adults	Children	Adults	Children	Adults	Children
European	2.4	3.8	11.0	15.5	17.9	24.7
Māori	7.3	13.9	17.9	26.3	26.3	38.4
Pacific Island	9.0	14.2	18.3	35.1	32.7	49.2
Other	14.2	17.1	27.1	40.6	31.1	50.5
Total	3.6	7.4	12.6	20.2	19.8	31.0

Source: Derived from the Poverty Management project data base, reproduced from Stephens et al (2000) p.18.

Back to top

3. Source of income

3.1 Income from wages and salaries/self-employment
Position of Māori women: In the June quarter 2000, 45% of Māori women aged 15 and over were receiving income from wages and salaries or self-employment.

Table C7. Proportions receiving income from wages and salaries or self employment, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	39%	55%	55%	71%
1998	39%	55%	53%	68%
1999	40%	55%	55%	70%
2000	45%	59%	55%	70%

 Source: New Zealand Income Survey, age standardised.

Table C7 shows that of all groups, Māori women are the least likely to receive income from wages, salaries or self-employment. The disparity between Māori women and men is almost the same as the disparity between non-Māori women and men: 14 percentage points and 15 percentage points respectively. The predominant gap is one of gender, although the disparities between the two groups of women (10 percentage points) and the two groups of men (11 percentage points) are also substantial.

The high percentage of non-Māori men receiving income from wages, salaries or self-employment is due mainly to the fact that 19% are receiving income from self-employment, compared with 7% of Māori men, 8% of non-Māori women and just 4% of Māori women.

The occupations with the highest age standardised proportions of wage and salary earners are:

• Among Māori women: 25% are service and sales workers, 17% are professionals, 17% are clerks
• Among non-Māori women: 23% are service and sales workers, 22% are clerks, 18% are professionals
• Among Māori men: 27% are plant and machine operators and assistants, 12% elementary occupations, 12% are agriculture and fisheries workers
• Among non-Māori men: 15% are trades workers, 14% are plant and machine operators and assemblers, 14% legislators, administrators and managers, (and 12% are professionals)
  

Back to top

3.2 Income from the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB)
Position of Māori women: In the June quarter 2000, 14% of Māori women aged 15 and over were receiving transfer income from the government in the form of the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB).

Table C8. Proportions receiving income from the DPB, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000
(Note that the findings for men particularly are likely to be associated with a high sample error. However, data on DPB recipients from the Department of Work and Income are roughly similar: Māori women 21%, non-Māori women 5%, Māori men 3%, non-Māori men 0.5%.)

	Māori		Non-Māori
Year	Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	17%	3%	4%	0%
1998	16%	3%	4%	1%
1999	15%	2%	4%	0%
2000	14%	2%	4%	1%

Source: New Zealand Income Survey, age standardised.

The DPB was established to enable sole parents to care for their children without having to take on long hours of paid work. Other forms of caregiving are now included, such as looking after a sick or disabled person.

The average weekly payment across all groups of DPB recipients, net of income tax and including accommodation supplement, disability benefit, special benefit and family support, was $339.34. Those receiving the DPB are by definition not living with an earning partner and are supporting at least one other person with their income. In comparison, in 2000, the average weekly personal income is $446.73 before income tax, or $358.07 after tax (excluding investment income).

Over three-quarters (76%) of those receiving the DPB have no other reported income, 10% have reported income of between $1 and $80 per week, and the remaining 14% have other reported income of more than $80 per week. (Data source: Department of Work and Income, personal communication based on DWI statistics. Median values not readily available. Data as at June 2000.)

Of the four groups, Māori women as a group receive 38% of their income from all government transfers including superannuation, the highest proportion of any of the four groups. Non-Māori women receive 25% of their income from this source, while Māori men and non-Māori men receive 15% and 10% respectively.

Back to top

 

4. Household income

4.1 Equivalised Household income below $20,000
(The NZ Income Survey does not collect annual income, so the boundary ($20,000) has been divided by 52.14 to get a weekly equivalent.)
Position of Māori women: In the June quarter 2000, 31% of Māori women living with children and 27% of Māori women living without children had equivalised household income below $20,000.

Table C9. Proportions with and without children with equivalised Household income below $20,000, June quarter 1997 - June quarter 2000
(Data has been equivalised using Luxembourg Income Study Scales. Household income is divided by factors which adjust household income for differences in household size and composition.)

Year		Māori		Non-Māori
		Women	Men	Women	Men
1997	With Children	39%	28%	21%	16%
	Without Children	36%	36%	29%	23%
1998	With Children	37%	25%	20%	16%
	Without Children	31%	25%	24%	20%
1999	With Children	35%	26%	20%	16%
	Without Children	32%	25%	21%	18%
2000	With Children	31%	21%	20%	15%
	Without Children	27%	21%	18%	16%

Source: New Zealand Income Survey.

Household income data presented in this section has been equivalised or adjusted to account for differences in household size and composition. This adjustment makes it easier to compare income across different types of households. The level of $20,000 was chosen because 1996 Census data shows that 41% of all Māori children aged 0-14 were in families with an annual income of less than $20,000. Among non-Māori children the proportion was about 20%. (Te Puni Kōkiri and Ministry of Women's Affairs (1999).)

Māori women, whether living with children or not, are considerably more likely than any other group to have equivalised household income below $20,000. When the presence of children in the household is considered, the percentage with household income below $20,000 rises significantly for Māori women only. This means that children living with Māori women are more likely than children living with non-Maori to be in households with an equivalised household income below $20,000. As a group, Māori women are also more likely to live in a large family household (Statistics New Zealand (1998a).)

Back to top

5. Discussion

For five out of the seven income indicators, Māori women were found to be in the worst position: highest proportion receiving less than median hourly earnings, lowest proportion in the highest income quintile, lowest proportion of any group receiving income from wages, salaries or self employment, highest proportion of any group receiving the DPB, and highest proportion of any group to have equivalised household income below $20,000.

Despite the overall income gap being gender related rather than ethnicity related, the finding that 31% of Māori women living with children have equivalised household income below $20,000 is cause for concern, not only for the Māori women themselves, but also for the children living with them.

A recurring theme is that Māori women in particular have low earnings from paid employment compared with other groups, and also low levels of higher education. Identifying and removing barriers to higher education for Māori, particularly Māori women, is important.

The New Zealand Time Use Survey 1998-1999 identified that all Māori women aged 15 and above spend an average of 9.1 hours per week looking after children in their own household, while all non-Māori women spend an average of 6.1 hours (These average hours include time spent in ancillary services to childcare as well as actual time spent in childcare.) . Māori women may choose to work reduced hours or no hours for pay, in order to devote more time to childcare. On the other hand, this may be an enforced choice. Māori women appear to be more likely than non-Māori women to have difficulty accessing quality childcare that is culturally appropriate, is available at the time of day it is required, and is affordable. (See Education and Employment).

Back to top

5.1 The gender pay gap
The gender pay gap is the most significant factor in the overall gender gap in incomes. In 2000, Sylvia Dixon analysed the New Zealand gender pay gap. (Dixon (2000).) . She found that education, experience, occupation and industry together account for 40% to 80% of the gap, leaving 20% to 60% unexplained. Other findings showed that the gender pay gap is wider for Pakeha than for Māori. Income survey data for 1997-8 showed that Māori women's average hourly earnings were 86% of Māori men's, but Pakeha women's were 83% of Pakeha men's. This is likely to be due to the lower earnings of Māori men, rather than a better relative position for Māori women.

Over 1994-1998 the gender pay gap reduced, due both to improvements in women's real (Real earnings are earnings that have been adjusted for inflation.) earnings, and to reductions in men's real earnings. Women at all levels of the female hourly earnings distribution experienced some real earnings growth, while the hourly earnings of lower-paid men declined in real terms, and those of men in the middle ranges of male earnings did not rise much. Appreciable real earnings growth was recorded only at the upper end of the male pay distribution.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (1997) studied the gender pay gap in 1996, and found that over 1987-1996, New Zealand women's wages were consistently between 78% and 81% of men's wages. They explored future changes in the ratio over the following five years, and concluded that the gender pay gap was unlikely to narrow significantly in future, and might instead widen slightly. Reasons for this included that women are concentrated in industries where the gender wage gap is widening, and that above average wage growth was anticipated in some sectors where women were under-represented, such as transport and communications. This research indicates that the gender pay gap is an enduring phenomenon in New Zealand.

Back to top

5.2 Education and earnings
Sholeh Maani (2000) analysed how post compulsory and higher education (education beyond the age of 16) affects earnings for Māori and non-Māori, and how these have changed over the decade 1986 to 1996. She shows that in general, the higher the educational level attained, the higher the income earned. This is more so for Māori than non-Māori, partly because of the lower income levels for Māori without school qualifications.

This means that if Māori do not undertake post-compulsory education, they have 'more to lose' than non-Māori. In 1996 the majority of the Māori population did not possess school qualifications, indicating that there are some barriers operating. Maani considers that such barriers may include financial, rural, socio-economic, language, culture and school quality factors. She concludes that the returns from investing in higher education for the Māori population are very significant both for the Māori population and for the economy.

Back to top

5.3 Hardship
Qualitative research by the Family Centre in 1998 into the real-life experiences and choices faced by low income Māori found the over-riding factor to be the large extent and high degree of hardship faced by low income households. The picture was one of considerable hardship, insecurity and financial vulnerability, with many people struggling to meet essential costs. These pressures placed heavy strains on family relationships, particularly the relationships between parents, and between parents and children.

Those living on low incomes may have greater incentives to take part in the hidden (also called the informal or black) economy. (http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/ [2001].) Research commissioned by the Inland Revenue Department found that the estimated long run average size of the hidden economy is 8.8% of GDP. The hidden economy fluctuates with the business cycle, so that when the business cycle is at its peak, the hidden economy is at its largest. This research also suggests that among other factors, the unemployment rate is significantly related to the size of the hidden economy. Working in the hidden economy excludes workers from protection offered by employment registration, and may be less secure.

Back to top

5.4 Discrimination
Cloher et al (1999) report that a 1992 study using results from the Household Economic Survey concludes that being Māori has a significant negative effect on wages. Theories of discrimination are supported by some New Zealand authors and several international authors (Dalziel P. (1991).) . On the other hand, a 1997 study argues that while each of the studies uses different types of analysis and takes different factors into account, on the whole the weight of the evidence is against the hypothesis of earnings discrimination. (Chapple, S. (2000).)

While no clear conclusion can be drawn, the possibility of wage or income discrimination should be kept in mind. Many of the participants in the Income and Māori Project described personally experiencing prejudice in their efforts to get work or assistance of some sort. (The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit (1998).)

Participants in qualitative research by the Family Centre (1998) consistently identified areas where the regimes of Pakeha society created barriers to Māori achievement. A major theme to emerge was the importance given to, and recognition of, culture as an essential determinant of how people function in different systems and organisations, and differences between Māori culture and the dominant Pakeha culture.

Back to top

5.5 Shifts in income distribution
In 1986 the average income for Māori women was 84.3% of the average for Pakeha women, but by 1996 this had dropped to 74.4%. The average income for Māori men in 1986 was 73.5% of the average for Pakeha men, but by 1996 this had dropped to 63.8%. This widening income disadvantage for Māori was partly associated with less employment, greater unemployment, and a lower probability of working full-time, (Manni 2000). Note that this analysis is based on census income which includes unearned income such as rents, interest and government assistance.

There has been a polarisation of incomes in New Zealand over the last 15 years, which is generally attributed to the wide ranging reforms of the period. More people have moved into the highest and lowest income brackets, rather than being concentrated in the centre of the distribution.

Statistics New Zealand has found that there has been a sharp increase in wage and salary inequality among men over the period 1982 to 1996, primarily in the 1986 to 1991 period. Inequality among women wage and salary earners increased only a little over the same period, although the degree of inequality among women is significantly higher than among men. This results partly from the higher proportion of women employed part-time. (Statistics New Zealand (1998b).) Statistics New Zealand did not analyse inequality by ethnicity.

O'Dea (2000) describes how the income distribution has changed during the period 1981 to 1996. He finds that income inequality rose regardless of how income is measured, whether individual or household, before or after tax, from different data sources and after adjusting for changes in household size and composition. Income inequality did not fall during the economic expansion of the 1990s, which indicates that it was driven by 'structural changes to the fabric of the economy or society' (O'Dea (2000), p.9.) and not only by the business cycle. The increase in inequality appears to have been proportionately larger than that seen in most other developed countries, so that New Zealand now appears to have one of the highest levels of inequality in the OECD. Given that Māori were particularly affected by the structural changes in the economy it seems likely that they were also particularly affected by widening income inequality.

Economic trends elsewhere in the economy may influence income levels in ways that are not obvious and not easily quantified. Work by Podder and Chatterjee (1998) suggests that the business cycle brought about changes in the number and distribution of wage and salary jobs across the working age population. These changes were found to have had a much larger impact on total income inequality than changes in the concentration of earnings among the holders of wage and salary jobs. This means that changes in the number and types of jobs have more impact on the distribution of income than changes in wage rates for those with jobs.

Back to top

5.6 Family income
Johnstone and Pool (1996) analysed census data to estimate median incomes separately for various family and ethnicity types in 1981, 1986 and 1991. They found that the income of Māori families (Determining the ethnicity of a family is particularly problematic. For the purposes of this study family ethnicity was determined using the ethnicity of the male parent or partner, which is assumed to be the same for all other family members. It is recognised by the authors that this is not entirely satisfactory.) was generally less than that of Pakeha families, and in some cases Māori income as a percentage of Pakeha income declined between 1981 and 1991. This pattern was most noticeable for sole parents in full-time employment, and for older Māori couple families where at least one partner was in full-time employment. Māori couple families where both partners were employed showed an income decline which was between 2.4 and 9.0% greater than the decline experienced by Pakeha couple families.

These authors note that many commentators have attributed decreases in family well-being to the structural changes families experienced over the decade 1981 to 1991, notably apparent increases in 'dysfunctionality', such as the increase in the number of sole-parent families - a minority category which was always among the most vulnerable to low income. However, it is two parent-families, the type of family which many commentators view as the most ‘functional', who have suffered the most significant declines in income. These declines cannot be attributed to a shift away from the two-parent family to the sole parent family.

Back to top

Data sources

The New Zealand Income Survey (NZIS) provided most of the data. This sample survey is conducted as a supplement to the HLFS (see above) in the June quarter of each year. Annual income data is from the 1996 Population Census, conducted by Statistics New Zealand. NZIS data is subject to sample and non-sample error. Census data is not subject to sample error, but is subject to non-sample error. Statistics New Zealand advise that the NZIS does not include investment income.

Back to top

References

Chapple, S. (2000). Māori Socio-economic Disparity. Updated version of a paper presented at the July 2000 NZ Association of Economists Conference.

Cloher, Urlich, D. et al (1999). Research Strategy for Examining the Determinants of Māori/non-Māori Disparities. James Henare Māori Research Centre, July.

Dalziel P. (1991). Explaining Ethnic Differences in Economic Attainment. Whitwell J & Thompson MA (eds). Society and Culture : Economic Perspectives Vol 1. NZ Association of Economists : Auckland 23-38.

Dixon, S. (2000). Pay Inequality between Men and Women in New Zealand. Occasional Paper 2000/1 in the New Zealand Department of Labour Occasional Paper Series. Wellington: Department of Labour.

Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit (1998). Income and Māori Project: Report of the Qualitative Component. Unpublished report prepared for Te Puni Kōkiri.

http://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/files/html/coe/chapter7.htm (as at 29 January 2001).

Johnstone, K. & Pool, I., (1996). New Zealand Families: Size, Income and Labour Force Participation, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 7, 143-173.

Kell Easting, S. & Fleming, R. (1994). Families, Money and Policy. Intra Family Income Project, Wellington.

Maani, S. (2000). Secondary and Tertiary Educational Attainment and Income Levels for Māori and Non-Māori Over Time. Treasury Working Paper 2000/18. Wellington: The Treasury.

Ministry of Education (1999). New Zealand's Tertiary Education: Sector Profiles and Trends 1998. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (1997). Gender Wage Gap: Scenarios of the Gender Wage Gap. Wellington: NZIER.

O'Dea, D. (2000). The Changes in New Zealand's Income Distribution. Treasury Working Paper 00/13. Wellington: The Treasury.

Podder, N. & Chatterjee, S. (1998). Sharing the National Cake in Post-reform New Zealand: Income Inequality Trends in Terms of Income Sources. Unpublished paper presented at the New Zealand Association of Economists Conference, Wellington, 2-4 September.

Statistics New Zealand (1998a). New Zealand Now: Māori. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.

Statistics New Zealand (1998b). New Zealand Now: Incomes. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand.

Stephens, R. (1999). Poverty, Family Finances and Social Security. Boston, J., Dalziel, P., St John, S. (eds) in Redesigning the Welfare State in New Zealand: problems, policies, prospects. Auckland: Oxford University Press.

Stephens, R., Frater P. and Waldegrave C. (2000) Below the Line: an Analysis of Income Poverty in New Zealand, 1984-1998. Working Paper 2/00. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.

Taiapa, J. Te Urikore Turupa (1994). Ta Te Whānau Ohanga: The Economics of the Whānau, Palmerston North: Department of Māori Studies, Massey University.

Te Puni Kōkiri & Ministry of Women's Affairs (1999). Māori Women in Focus. Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri & Ministry of Women's Affairs.

Waldegrave, C. (2000). Poverty: The Litmus Test of Social and Economic Policy Failure. A paper for presentation at the Second Biennial Aotearoa New Zealand International Development Studies Network (DEVNET) Conference, Poverty, Prosperity and Progress, 18 November 2000. Wellington: The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit.

Back to top

[ Previous | Contents | Next ]