In the last post, I presented evidence that Trinidad’s recent boom had no impact on median household incomes. To be clear, that data is highly inconclusive. Without the time to process the raw data, we have no way of knowing if the 2014 estimate measures the same thing as the 1997 estimate.
So what other data can we use to measure changes in Trini living standards? Well, I went to the census and pulled up the percentage of households with access to various durable goods in 2000 (Table 7.16) and 2011. Here are the results:
These figures show some increase in living standards, but not a revolution. Internet access soars, but that is unsurprising and easily explained by a fall in cost. Ownership of washing machines and microwaves jumps a lot; enjoyment of air conditioning rises a lot in percentage terms but remains fairly low.
Other indicators show more impressive gains, albeit from an already-high base. The number of households with access to private toilet facilities went from 87% to 94%. Access to electric lighting went from 91% to 98%. Direct access to piped water went from 61% to 76%.
These increases were due to a housing boom over the decade: by 2011, fully 23% of all houses on the island had been built in the 21st century. (This number is a lower-bound estimate.) That is good! In fact, I noticed the housing boom back in 2007. In total, around 74,000 new units hit the market in 2000-11.
So that is where some of the money went: new and better houses and mundane public investments in sewers and electric wires. That should be captured in the GDP figures (as an increase in investment followed by a increase in output). But it is easy to imagine that it might not be captured in the figures for median income, unless housing costs were very carefully adjusted for quality and imputed benefits. (They were in 1976 and 1997; for 2014, I have no idea.)
Still, the housing boom, while real, is not quite as dramatic as it migh appear. The country built about 7400 units per year in the booming 2000s, but it also managed to build 4800 units per year in the boring 1990s. So not nothing, but not as big as might have been expected in a country whose real GDP doubled between 2000 and 2008.
In short, the boom saw some improvement in Trinidadian living standards. And the improvement is visible on the ground: in the new suburbs that have spread out to the south and east or the traffic-choked roads. (More on that later.) We therefore have two potential explanations of where the money went:
- The one citation we have for median income in 2014 may not be properly adjusted for non-monetary income, poor reporting, and improvements in housing quality;
- Plenty of money went into improving the housing stock and associated public investments.
Those do not quite seem to be enough; after all, we are talking about a full doubling of GDP in a low-population growth country. Any thoughts?
Comments