# **WEB APPENDIX TABLE 15: RURAL NATURAL INCREASE, URBAN GROWTH AND RURAL CONGESTION, 1960-2010**

|Dependent Variable<br>(Rural, 2000-2010):|Living<br>Area (%)<br>(1)|Finished<br>Floor (%)<br>(2)|Water<br>Source (%)<br>(3)|Sanitation<br>Facilities (%)<br>(4)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Rural Natural Increase|_|-10.4|-7.2**|-11.7***|
|(%, 1960-2010)|_|(6.7)|(3.6)|(4.2)|
|Residual Rural Outmigration|_|5.6|4.2|6.3*|
|(%, 1960-2010)|_|(6.2)|(2.8)|(3.7)|
|Annual Urban Growth Rate|_|-3.9|1.4|-0.3|
|(%,1960-2010)|_|(4.3)|(2.1)|(2.3)|
|Observations|_|66; 37.4|92; 65.5|92; 42.2|
|Dependent Variable|Solid|School Attend.|PM10<br>|Empl. Share|
|(Rural, 2000-2010):|Fuels (%)<br>(5)|(6-15 y.o., %)<br>(6)|(mg per m<sup>3</sup>)<br>(7)|Pers. Serv. (%)<br>(8)|
|Rural Natural Increase|15.4***|-11.1**|_|_|
|(%, 1960-2010)|(3.9)|(5.2)|_|_|
|Residual Rural Outmigration|-10.5**|4.2|_|_|
|(%, 1960-2010)|(4.3)|(5.3)|_|_|
|Annual Urban Growth Rate|-2.5|1.6|_|_|
|(%,1960-2010)|(3.1)|(4.7)|_|_|
|Observations; Sample Mean|78; 71.1|65; 66.2|_|_|
|Specifcation Col.(1) Table 4|Y|Y|Y|Y|

**_Notes_ : This table shows that fast rural natural increase in 1960-2010 is associated with higher rural congestion in 2000-2010. The speed of urban growth in 1960-2010 has no effect on rural congestion today.** The sample consists of 92 countries that were still developing countries in 1960. Robust SEs in parentheses; * p _<_ 0.10, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. Rural natural increase in 2000 is used as a proxy for rural natural increase in 1960-2010. The rural outmigration rate in 1960-2010 is the residual between the rural natural increase rate and the annual rural growth rate in 1960-2010. We also control for the annual urban growth rate in 1960-2010. Column (1): No data exists on the share of rural inh. who lack sufficient-living area (%) today. Column (2): The dependent variable is the share of rural inh. who live in a residence with a finished floor (%) in 2005. Columns (3)-(4): It is the share of rural inh. who have access to an improved water source and improved sanitation facilities in 2005 respectively (%). Column (5): It is the share of rural inh. using solid fuels (%) in 2000-2010. Column (6): It is the rural share of 6-15 year-old children that attend school (%) in 2000-2010. Column (7): No data exists on particulate matter (PM) concentrations in rural areas today. Column (8): We cannot use the “personal and other services” sector as a rural refugee sector. All regressions include log GDP per capita (PPP, cst 2005$) and the urbanization rate (%) in 1960 and 2010, region FE, and the same controls as in Table 4 (see the notes below the Table). See Web Appendix for data sources.

# **WEB APPENDIX TABLE 16: RURAL NATURAL INCREASE, URBAN GROWTH AND RURAL DEPENDENCY RATIOS, 1960-2010**

|Dependent Variable<br>(Rural, 2000-2010):|Child Dependency<br>(0-14 y.o.) Ratio<br>(1)|Aged Dependency<br>(65-+y.o.) Ratio<br>(2)|Total Dependency<br>(0-14 & 65-+y.o.) Ratio<br>(3)|
|---|---|---|---|
|Rural Natural Increase|14.1***|-1.4*|12.6***|
|(%, 1960-2010)|(3.9)|(0.8)|(4.0)|
|Residual Rural Outmigration|-5.5*|1.2|-4.3|
|(%, 1960-2010)|(3.2)|(0.8)|(3.3)|
|Annual Urban Growth Rate|-1.4|-1.5*|-2.9|
|(%,1960-2010)|(2.5)|(0.6)|(2.8)|
|Observations; Sample Mean|70; 88.2|70; 9.8|70; 98.0|
|Specifcation Col.(1)Table 4|Y|Y|Y|

**_Notes_ : This table shows that fast rural natural increase in 1960-2010 is associated with higher rural dependency ratios in 2000-2010. The speed of urban growth in 1960-2010 has no, or little, effect on the rural dependency ratios today.** The sample consists of 70 countries that were still developing countries in 1960. Robust SEs in parentheses; * p _<_ 0.10, ** p _<_ 0.05, *** p _<_ 0.01. Rural natural increase in 2000 is used as a proxy for rural natural increase in 1960-2010. The residual rural outmigration rate in 1960-2010 is the residual between the rural natural increase rate and the annual rural growth rate in 1960-2010. We also control for the annual urban growth rate in 1960-2010. Column (1): The dependent variable is the ratio of the number of rural inh. aged 0-14 over the number of rural inh. aged 15-64. Column (2): It is the ratio of the number of rural inh. aged 0-14 or 65-120 over the number of rural inh. aged 15-64. Column (3): It is the ratio of the number of rural inh. aged 0-14 or 65-120 over the number of rural inh. aged 15-64. All regressions include log GDP per capita (PPP, cst 2005$) and the urbanization rate (%) in 1960 and 2010, region FE, and the same controls as in Table 4 (see the notes below the Table). See Web Appendix for data sources.

A. 20