CHAPTER 3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND

MATERIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF NEW ZEALANDERS

This chapter gives population estimates for the basic demographic variables included in the surveys
and population prevalences for the different types of living standard indicator items. The population
estimates were made using weighted sample data. This chapter serves two purposes: first, to provide
a basic demographic profile of the population being studied, and second, to provide a part of the
foundation for the construction of the generic scale of living standards1.
Most of the results that are presented are population estimates for adult individuals. However, there
are also results that relate to EFUs with children. This is because the data on items specific to children
derive from responses by their parents, and are most easily interpretable when put in the context of the
responses about the EFUs containing the children.

These EFUs are broken down according to

whether the adult respondent was a sole parent or partnered.

The material is presented in two major sections and comprises:
1. basic demographic characteristics the demographic characteristics of the sample are presented
in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and EFU composition, number of children, educational
attainment, source of income, and socio-economic status. The major purpose of this material is to
provide a general social profile of the sample from which the responses were drawn.
2. living standard indicator items an account of the material circumstances of New Zealanders in
terms of a series of indicator measures, including: ownership of personal/household goods;
prevalence of social participation; extent of economising behaviours; the prevalence of serious
financial problems and accommodation problems. The aim of this section is to build up a picture of
the material circumstances of New Zealanders, particularly, the extent to which members of the
population are subject to material deprivation or economic hardship.

Demographic Characteristics
Table 3.1 gives the age, gender, and ethnicity breakdowns of the population provided by the combined
weighted samples. The sample is weighted to reflect the composition of the population with respect to
age, gender, ethnicity and EFU composition.
1. Age: The mean age was 43 years for males, and 44 years for females.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the population by means of population estimates from the weighted
sample data, not to test the representativeness of the data. As indicated in the previous chapter, the latter task
was done by comparing Census results on selected variables with estimates given by the weighted sample data.
These comparisons, which are reported in Appendix C, show an adequate match.

35

2. Ethnicity: Most respondents identified themselves as being of European ethnicity. Similarly,

most partners/spouses were identified as being of European Ethnicity.
3. Gender: Amongst the respondents there was a slight predominance of females.
As a result of the weighting process, these characteristics correspond closely with the population
characteristics, as defined by the 2001 Census.

Table 3.1: Age, ethnicity, and gender distribution of population (estimated from combined weighted
sample)
Measure

Percent

Age (adults and children)

Dependent children (under 18 years)

25.9

18 to 24

10.7

24 to 44

31.5

45 to 64

20.5

65 and over

11.4

Ethnicity (adults)
Mori

14.0

NZ Pacific

5.8

Chinese

2.0

Indian

1.4

Other

3.8

European

79.7

Gender (adults)
Female

50.2

Male

49.8

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of
probability of selection, non-response, and sample stratification. Ethnicity does not sum to 100 as
groups are not mutually exclusive.
Additional analysis of the responses indicated the following general conclusions:
4. EFU Type: Weighted responses indicated that 26.1 percent of EFUs were a single person
without dependent children; 25.1 percent were a couple without dependent children; 38.4
percent were a couple with dependent children; 10.4 percent were sole-parent families.

36

5. Number of dependent children: Weighted responses indicated that 63.8 percent of workingage EFUs had no dependent children; 13.0 percent had one dependent child; 14.8 percent had
two dependent children; 8.4 percent had three or more dependent children.
6. Educational attainment:

Weighted responses indicated that 20.5 percent of adults had

attained no school qualifications; 29.7 percent reported that they had attained a qualification at
school; 34.8 percent reported that they had attained an occupational certificate or diploma; and
15.0 percent indicated that they had attained a bachelors degree or higher.
7. Source of Income: Weighted responses indicated that for 12.4 percent of the population the
main source of income was from New Zealand Superannuation; for 16.0 percent the main
source was from an income-tested benefit; and for 71.6 percent the main source was market
income; Of those with market income as their main source 61.5 percent received income from
were salary and wages only, and the remainder (38.5 percent) received income from selfemployment only.
8. Occupational Distribution: This was classified using the New Zealand Standard Classification
of Occupations (NZSCO). Weighted responses indicated that 4.5 percent of main income
earners were in Elementary Occupations; 26.3 percent in Trades and Plant and Machine
Work; 9.5 percent in Agricultural and Fishery Work; 16.9 in Clerical, Services and Sales
Occupations; 27.7 percent in Professional, Assistant Professional, and Technical Work; and
15.1 percent in Legal, Administration or Managerial Occupations.

Living Standards Indicator Items

The primary focus of the research reported here is on developing a measure of economic living
standards based on patterns of ownership, social participation, economising, serious financial
problems, and self-ratings of standard of living and adequacy of income. The next chapter describes
the ways in which these indicators were scaled to produce a generic scale of living standards. In this
section, the background to the subsequent development of the generic scale is presented by reporting
the items and their endorsement rates.

Ownership and Ownership Restrictions

One indicator of living standards is the extent to which people own possessions. As a general rule,
those with high living standards are characterised by high levels of ownership of consumer durables
and other related resources, whereas those with low living standards lack many of these. These
considerations suggest that an assessment of the level of ownership should provide useful information

37

about the overall standard of living of an individual or a family unit. However, it is also clear that there
are differing personal preferences for some consumption goods.

While almost everyone in New

Zealand wants waterproof shoes, not everyone wants a computer. This consideration suggest that
information about ownership should be interpreted in the context of the persons wants and
preferences as their pattern of ownership will reflect not only their economic circumstances but also
their personal preferences. As discussed in the previous chapter, the present research uses the
concept of enforced lack (Mack and Lansley, 1985) operationalised as the things one wants but lacks
because of cost.
Table 3.2 shows the percentage of people in the population who have the given item and the
percentage who report an enforced lack of the given item. Table 3.3 shows the same information for
sole-parent families and two-parent families.
Overall, the responses obtained for the population and for families with children show a high level of
ownership for many of the listed items. More than 90 percent of adults had the following items: a
warm winter coat, telephone, a good bed, car, a good pair of shoes, washing machine, warm bedding
in winter, TV, inside toilet, hot running water, main supplied electricity, and running water. For EFUs
with children, more than 75 percent had a childs bike, wet weather clothing for each child and shoes in
good condition for each child. The items for which relatively few people reported ownership include:
holiday home, boat, pay TV, and a Playstation (for families with children).

38

Table 3.2: Ownership restrictions -- population (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Have

Enforced Lack
(Want but dont have cost)

Common Items

Percent

Percent

Holiday home

10

39

Boat

15

23

Pay TV

31

18

PC

49

18

Internet

39

17

Dishwasher

47

14

Waste disposal unit

26

Heating in all main rooms

76

Home contents insurance

84

Clothes dryer

69

Food processor

63

A best outfit

85

Secure locks

87

Video player

88

Microwave

86

A warm winter coat

90

A good bed

96

Stereo

88

Car

93

A good pair of shoes

97

A pet

64

Telephone

98

Washing machine

98

Warm bedding in winter

98

TV

98

Inside toilet

99

Hot running water

99

Mains electricity

99

Running water

99

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

39

Table 3.3: Ownership restrictions families with children (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Two-parent families
Common Items
Holiday home

Have
Percent
10

Enforced Lack
Percent
48

Sole-parent families
Have
Percent
4

Enforced Lack
Percent
53

Boat

17

30

24

Pay TV

31

19

20

32

PC

67

18

35

38

Internet

50

18

26

34

Dishwasher

59

15

29

29

Waste disposal unit

29

10

12

18

Heating in all main rooms

78

61

22

Home contents insurance

87

56

25

Clothes dryer

80

59

22

Food processor

67

42

19

A best outfit

83

70

18

Secure locks

87

79

14

A warm winter coat

91

83

Microwave

92

78

11

A good bed

97

85

13

Warm bedding in winter

97

94

A good pair of shoes

97

87

11

Video player

95

81

12

Stereo

94

86

A pet

74

61

Washing machine

99

96

Car

99

78

16

Telephone

98

90

Hot running water

99.9

0.1

99

0.7

Inside toilet

99

0.1

98

0.4

TV

98

0.1

97

0.2

Running water

99.8

0.1

99

0.6

Mains electricity

99

0.0

99.6

0.2

Children-Specific Items
A Playstation

35

32

17

Wet weather clothing

89

83

12

A child's bike

80

69

12

Shoes in good condition

96

91

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

40

Social Participation and Participation Restrictions

A second type of information that reflects living standards concerns social participation. One possible
indicator of low living standards may be that individuals are unable to sustain the level of social contact
they would like to maintain. As was the case for patterns of ownership, social participation will not only
reflect the individuals economic circumstances, but also their preferences. For these reasons, in the
present study information is gathered on extent of social participation, as well as the extent of enforced
lack of social participation. These results are presented in Table 3.4, for the population, and Table 3.5,
for families with children.
The data suggests that there are very few listed activities that people dont do because of cost. Less
than 10 percent reported that they couldnt afford to visit a hairdresser once every three months, have
a special meal at home once a week, give presents to family and friends, or participate in family
activities. These findings extended to children specific items. For example, less than 4 percent report
that cost prevents them from having childrens friends over for a meal.

This picture of social

participation restrictions is reasonably consistent for two-parent families. However, a different picture
emerges for sole-parent families.

A greater percentage of sole-parent families report that cost

prevents them from engaging in social activities than for two-parent families. For example, 58 percent
of sole-parent families cannot afford childcare services versus 26 percent of two-parent families.
Table 3.4: Social participation restrictions population (estimated from combined weighted sample)

Common Items

Do

Enforced Lack

Percent

Percent

Have a holiday overseas every 3 years

35

41

Have a holiday away from home every year

63

21

Have a night out once a fortnight

47

17

Visit hairdresser once every 3 months

67

Have a special meal at home once a week

56

Have family/friends over for a meal once a month

70

Have enough room for family and friends to stay

87

Gives presents to family/friends

94

Participate in family activities

86

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

41

Table 3.5: Social participation restrictions EFUs with children (estimated from combined weighted
sample)
Enforced Lack

Common Items

Two-parent families

Sole-parent families

Percent

Percent

Have a holiday overseas every 3 years

50

70

Have a holiday away from home every year

25

45

Have a night out once a fortnight

25

29

Visit hairdresser once every 3 months

26

Have a special meal at home once a week

14

Have enough room for family and friends to stay

11

Have family/friends over for a meal once a month

11

Gives presents to family/friends

Participate in family activities

Children Specific Items

Pay for childcare services

26

58

Have children's friends over for meal

15

Have children's friends over for birthday party

Have enough room for children's friends to stay

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

Economising Behaviour
A further type of information about living standards is the extent to which individuals restrict their
expenditure in key areas such as food, home heating, clothing, and medical care. As in the case of
ownership or social participation, it is important to assess the reasons for the deficits in consumption.
For example, some people may restrict their consumption patterns out of a sense of frugality rather
than because this restriction is an economic necessity. To address these issues, respondents in the
study were asked whether in the last 12 months they had restricted their expenditure and consumption
in key areas of food, clothing, medical expenses, and so on, because they could not afford the cost of
these items.
Tables 3.6 and 3.7 show the items, and report the percentage of the population (and for families with
children) who reported economising not at all, a little, and a lot for each item. The Table 3.6 shows that
a substantial percentage of people report engaging in economising behaviours, particularly in the areas
of food and clothing. Approximately 20 percent of the population reported that they put off visits to the
dentist a little or a lot because of the cost. As with the previous set of indicators, a similar picture
emerges for two-parent families (Table 3.7), but sole-parent families report much more economising.

42

For this group, the percentage of people who report not economising at all is smaller than for twoparent families or for the total population.

The impression from these results is that sole-parent

families economise their expenditure to a much greater extent than two-parent families.

Table 3.6: Economising behaviour population (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Extent of Economising Behaviour
Not at all

A little

A lot

Percent

Percent

Percent

Put off buying new clothes

41

35

24

Less/cheaper meat

43

35

23

Less time on hobbies

60

26

14

Postponed/put off visits to dentist

62

20

18

Cut back on trips to shops

63

29

Kept wearing old clothes

67

23

10

Bought second-hand clothes

69

21

10

Cut back on visits to family/friends

74

20

Postponed/put off visits to doctor

75

17

Common Items

Wear worn out shoes

77

15

Relied on gifts of clothing

78

15

Cut back/cancelled insurance

79

14

Less fresh fruit & vegetables.

83

13

Put up with feeling cold

85

12

Went without glasses

88

Stayed in bed for warmth

88

Not picked up prescription

90

Not gone to funeral/tangi

91

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

43

Table 3.7: Economising behaviours families with children (estimated from combined weighted
sample)
Two-parent families

Common Items

Sole-parent families

Not at all

A little

A lot

Not at all

A little

A lot

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Put off buying new clothes

30

43

28

15

30

55

Less/cheaper meat

34

37

28

16

32

52

Less time on hobbies

48

35

18

29

28

43

Postponed visits to dentist

52

26

21

35

27

38

Cut back on trips to shops

52

38

10

33

46

20

Bought second-hand clothes 57

30

13

38

27

34

Kept wearing old clothes

59

30

11

39

31

30

Not do training/education

63

22

15

50

23

28

Relied on gifts of clothing

67

23

10

50

28

22

Cut back visits to family

67

25

45

38

17

Wear worn out shoes

72

20

50

33

17

Put off visits to doctor

72

20

50

32

18

Cancelled insurance

75

19

68

14

17

Less fresh fruit & vegs.

82

13

59

31

10

Put up with feeling cold

85

12

67

25

Went without glasses

86

80

11

Not picked up prescription

88

72

20

Not gone to funeral/tangi

88

76

16

Stayed in bed for warmth

90

72

19

Children Specific Items

Not enough bedrooms

79

13

70

12

17

Went without cultural lessons 84

12

72

14

14

Not bought books for home

86

11

68

17

15

Child wore bad fitting clothes 86

13

76

16

8
10

Child's sport limited

88

74

17

Limited space

88

79

12

Not gone on school outings 93

77

16

Not bought school books

94

83

10

Put off child's visits to doctor 95

88

Put off child's visits to dentist 96

90

Children share a bed

97

91

Child went without glasses

98

97

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

44

Serious Financial Problems

A well-documented accompaniment of deprivation (and therefore low living standard) is the extent to
which people have financial problems that jeopardise the maintenance of basic living conditions (e.g.,
electricity supply, housing, etc.). To examine this issue, respondents were asked whether they had
had various financial problems in the last 12 months. The results are shown in Table 3.8. The most
common financial problem amongst the population was borrowing money from friends and family to
meet everyday living costs. A relatively high proportion of people (10 percent) also reported that they
could not keep up payments for hire purchase and credit cards or payments of electricity, gas, and
water. While a similar pattern was observed for two-parent families, there was a marked difference in
the amount of serious financial problems experienced by sole-parent families. Table 3.8 shows that 45
percent borrowed money off friends and family to meet everyday living costs; 36 percent could not
keep up payments for electricity, gas, and water; and 27 percent could not maintain payments for hire
purchases and credit cards.

These results indicate that while the population experiences few

incidences of the types of serious financial problems measured by these items, a different picture
emerges for sole-parent families, with a high incidence of people reporting difficulties in meeting
everyday living costs, utility payments, and credit repayments.
Table 3.8: Serious financial problems population (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Percent having problem
Borrowed money from friend/family to meet everyday living costs

14

Couldnt keep up payments for hire purchase, credit cards

10

Couldnt keep up payments for electricity, gas, water

10

Pawned or sold something to meet everyday living costs

Couldnt keep up payments on mortgage, rent

Received help (food, clothing, money) from community organisation

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

45

Table 3.9: Serious financial problems families with children (estimated from combined weighted
sample)
Percent having problem
Two-parent families

Sole-parent families

Borrowed money from friend/family to meet everyday living costs

13

27

Couldnt keep up payments for hire purchase, credit cards

13

46

Couldnt keep up payments for electricity, gas, water

12

36

Pawned or sold something to everyday meet living costs

17

Couldnt keep up payments on mortgage, rent

21

Received help (food, clothing, money) from community organisation

21

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification.

Accommodation Problems
The survey questionnaire included items concerning problems with accommodation.

As stated in

Chapter 1, on the basis of previous research it was not expected that accommodation data would fit
into a measurement model specified primarily in terms of enforced lacks and economising behaviours.
However, it was expected that such data would show a sizable correlation with a scale based on the
latter types of information and might be helpful in interpreting results.

Accordingly, population

estimates for the accommodation problems are presented below in Table 3.10. Estimates are given
separately for adults and families with dependent children.
Table 3.10: Accommodation problems population (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Population
Draughts
Dampness
Pollution
Noise
Plumbing
Wiring
Interior paintwork
Windows
Doors
Roof
Piles
Exterior paintwork
Fences
Paving
Other problems

21
19
7
21
11
6
18
15
10
12
5
19
15
10
10

Percent having problem

Two-parent families
23
20
6
19
11
6
20
19
10
13
4
22
16
11
11

Sole-parent families
17
19
7
24
12
4
14
10
9
9
5
16
13
8
9

Note: all values have been estimated from the observed sample to take account of probability of selection, nonresponse, and sample stratification.

46

Self-Ratings
Another perspective on a persons living standard can be gained by asking them to provide their own
assessment. Table 3.11 reports on three ratings of standard of living for the adult population. Selfratings for families with children are presented in Table 3.12. The first measure asked respondents
whether they found their current income adequate to meet their day-to-day living costs. The second
measure asked respondents to assess their overall standard of living on a scale ranging from high to
low. The third measure assessed respondents satisfaction with their standard of living. The third
measure was not part of the CFA model fitted by Fergusson et al. (2001) for older people or for the
present CFA analysis. However, it is used in later parts of the report for the specification of the general
use form of the measure. The questions were:
1. How well does your (or your and your partners combined) total income meet your everyday
needs for such things as accommodation, food, clothing, and other necessities?
2. Generally, how would you rate your standard of living?
3. Generally, how satisfied are you with your current standard of living?

Table 3.11: Ratings of adequacy of income, standard of living, and satisfaction with standard of living
population (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Measure
Adequacy of Income

Standard of Living

Satisfaction with Standard of Living

Percent
More than enough

13.6

Enough

29.7

Just enough

36.9

Not enough

19.8

High

8.0

Fairly high

30.7

Medium

53.5

Fairly low

5.9

Low

1.9

Very satisfied

19.6

Satisfied

52.0

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

18.7

Dissatisfied

8.1

Very dissatisfied

1.3

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification; values may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.

47

Table 3.12: Ratings of adequacy of income, standard of living, and satisfaction with standard of living
families with children (estimated from combined weighted sample)
Measure

Percent
Two-parent families

Adequacy of Income

Standard of Living

Satisfaction with Standard of Living

More than enough

9.4

Enough

31.3

Just enough

38.9

Not enough

20.4

High

8.0

Fairly high

34.4

Medium

52.3

Fairly low

3.4

Low

1.9

Very satisfied

20.7

Satisfied

50.7

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

19.0

Dissatisfied

8.2

Very dissatisfied

1.4

Sole-parent families
Adequacy of Income

Standard of Living

Satisfaction with Standard of Living

More than enough

42.4

Enough

36.4

Just enough

15.8

Not enough

5.4

High

2.9

Fairly high

16.4

Medium

57.2

Fairly low

19.1

Low

4.4

Very satisfied

5.6

Satisfied

36.1

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

30.2

Dissatisfied

24.3

Very dissatisfied

3.8

Note: All values have been estimated from the observed sample weighted to take account of probability of
selection, non-response, and sample stratification; values may not sum to 100 due to rounding error.

48

Summary
The aim of this chapter has been to present a descriptive profile of the populations social background
and living standards using a representative sample of the population of New Zealand. The chapter
showed the following:
1. basic demographic features: The age of the sample ranged from 18 years of age to over 90
years.

The sample comprised four major EFU types sole-parent families; two-parent

families; couple-only families; single people and included people with a range of educational
qualifications, occupational status, and income sources. The sample was representative of the
New Zealand population.
2. indicators of living standards: To develop a profile of the adult population of New Zealand,
data were presented on a number of living standards indicators including: ownership and
social participation restrictions, economising behaviour, serious financial problems, and selfratings.
The challenge is to find a means of combining the data from the indicators into one measure that
summarises satisfactorily the variations in living standards for New Zealanders. Subsequent chapters
will describe the ways in which the individual indicator measures that were reported in this chapter
were combined using multivariate methods to address this challenge.

49