Table 3: Demographic Statistics

||1<br>(<br>|995/96<br>HICES)<br>|<br>||1999<br>(LFS)<br>|||2005<br>(LFS)<br>||2<br>(<br>|010/11<br>HICES)<br>|<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||Tot.|Urb.|Rur.|Tot.|Urb.|Rur.|Tot.|Urb.|Rur.|Tot.|Urb.|Rur.|
|Total Population, million|52.7|7.6|45.1|54.5|7.4|47.1|63.2|9.0|54.3|76.1|12.6|63.5|
|Ages 0-9, %|32.2|25.3|33.4|33.8|23.7|35.4|35.1|23.5|37.0|32.4|22.2|34.4|
|Ages 10-24, %|33.0|38.4|32.0|31.6|38.8|30.4|30.6|39.0|29.1|32.6|37.8|31.5|
|Ages 25-64, %|31.4|32.8|31.2|31.2|34.3|30.7|31.1|33.4|30.6|31.3|36.6|30.3|
|Ages 65 and above, %|3.4|3.5|3.3|3.4|3.3|3.4|3.2|3.2|3.3|3.7|3.4|3.7|
|Age dependency Ratio (%)|0.55|0.40|0.58|0.59|0.37|0.63|0.62|0.37|0.68|0.56|0.34|0.62|
|Child (0-9)|0.50|0.36|0.53|0.54|0.32|0.58|0.57|0.32|0.62|0.51|0.30|0.56|
|Old-age (65+)|0.05|0.05|0.05|0.05|0.04|0.06|0.05|0.04|0.06|0.06|0.05|0.06|
|World Development Indicators|||||||||||||
|Population, million|58.8|8.2|50.5|63.9|9.3|54.6|74.3|11.7|62.6|84.7|14.4|70.3|
|Ages 0-14, %|46.0|..|..|46.0|..|..|44.5|..|..|40.8|..|..|
|Ages 15-64, %|51.1|..|..|51.0|..|..|52.4|..|..|55.8|..|..|
|Ages 65 and above, %|2.9|..|..|2.9|..|..|3.1|..|..|3.4|..|..|
|Age dependency ratio|0.96|..|..|0.96|..|..|0.91|..|..|0.79|..|..|
|Young (0-14)|0.90|..|..|0.90|..|..|0.85|..|..|0.73|..|..|
|Old(65+)|0.06|..|..|0.06|..|..|0.06|..|..|0.06|..|..|

Sources: Compiled from survey reports (HICES 1995/96, LFS 1999, LFS 2005, and HICES 2010/11) and WDI (2013).

Table 4 provides information on the labor market status of the population. The surveys suggest that the working age population increased from 36 million in 1996 to 41 million in 2005 and 52 million in 2011 – which corresponds to 68, 65 and 68 percent of total population, respectively. However, the caveats noted above also apply. In terms of its composition, the labor force participation rate – i.e. the share of the economically active population in the working age population – increased significantly up to 2005 and then declined sharply. The employment rate – i.e. the proportion of the employed population in the working age population – followed a similar trend.<sup>11</sup> International data suggests less pronounced patterns for these two variables, possibly due to the different age brackets. A potential explanation of the recent decline of both participation and employment rates relates to the recent increase in the student population.<sup>12</sup> Strong investments in education (including in rural areas) are likely to have contributed to increases in enrolment and attendance rates, therefore increasing the proportion of those that are economically inactive. This is particularly noticeable when the data includes the 10-14 age group. Hence, this should be seen as a positive development.

> 11 These trends are also observed when using the HICES 2004/05 instead of the LFS 2005.

> 12 The magnitude of these shifts may also be partly due to differences in methodology or definitions. For instance, the HICES data seems to underestimate the level of unemployment (self-declared), which could mean that economic inactivity may not be as high as suggested in 2011. Nonetheless, Molsa (2011) does suggest a large increase in inactivity rates from 2005 (LFS) to 2007 (Census) – from 15.3 to 25.6 per cent (for 15+) – in both rural and urban areas. This is particularly strong for the 15-19 age group. The inactive population is mainly composed of students (more than half) and home makers (about one-quarter).

12