have a business share of 3%) and the poor have a high share of food gifts (the bottom 20% of households have a food gift share of 17%, while for the top 20% the food gift share is 3%).<sup>50</sup> In urban areas, the main components of income are labor, varying from 50% to 60% across the quintiles, and business income with a share that is (roughly) 20% across income quintiles except for the top 20% of households where business income represents 40% of total income. For the top 1% of income-rich households, the business share is highest (i.e., 57%) and represents a higher share than labor (i.e., 38%). There is still a sizable share of agricultural income in urban households, between 14% and 19% for the bottom 80% of the income distribution, that declines to 5% for the top 1% of the income distribution. The share of food gifts as a source of urban income is 11% among the poor and decreases to 1% among the rich.

The wealth portfolio in rural areas has three major components: land (44%), housing (30%), and livestock (11%). The share of land wealth varies between 46% and 52% in the bottom 80% of the income distribution and decreases to 36% for the top 20% of the distribution and to 21% for the top 1%. Note that the bottom 1% of the income distribution in rural areas has a low share of its wealth derived from land, 30%. This is not surprising as precisely 49% among the bottom 1% owns no land. The share of housing wealth tends to decline with income in rural areas, from a share of 50% for the bottom 1% of the income distribution, to 38% for the bottom 20%, and to 24% for the top 1%. Instead, the share of livestock (a mechanism to accumulate wealth explored in Rosenzweig and Wolpin (1993)) and other durables seems to correlate positively with the income in rural areas. Other durables and livestock each represent 5% of the wealth portfolio for the bottom 20% in the wealth distribution, whereas for the top 20% they are, respectively, 15% and 20%. In urban areas, the major components of wealth are housing (59%), other durables (27%), and land (14%). To put these figures into context, note that the share of housing wealth is 24% in the United States (D ́ıaz-Gim ́enez et al. (2011)); thus, the share of housing in Malawi is about 2.5 larger than in the United States. This suggests that saving constraints in SSA might also take the form of limitations in the available savings portfolio.<sup>51</sup> Further, the share of housing wealth is roughly invariant to income, ranging from 45% to 61% across income quintiles in urban areas. The share of other durables is substantially larger for the top 20% of the income distribution (33%) and top 1% (37%) than for the rest of the income distribution (approximately 20%). The share of land among urban households is largest for the middle quintile (37%) and lowest for the bottom and top quintiles (respectively,

> 50Note that our measure of food gifts as a source of income is compiled from the consumption questionnaire. The results in Table 8 suggest that the questions on annual transfers in the income questionnaire are not able to capture the most relevant transfers received by the poorest 20%: food gifts.

> 51Santaeul`alia-Llopis and Zheng (2015) provide a similar argument for China, where growth over the past 20 years is associated with a portfolio largely dominated by lifetime savings (i.e., housing wealth and investment in children) that deter consumption insurance.

26