Nicaragua SOCIAL CONDITIONS
Nicaraguan Tourism Institute
CourtesyCourtesy Robert Buchta, Larry Simon, Marcelo Montecino, Larry Boyd
Rural family fetching water from a communal tap
Courtesy Nina Serafino
Nicaragua was one of the poorest countries in the
Western
Hemisphere in 1992, with a per-capita gross domestic
product
(GDP--see Glossary)
estimated at approximately US$425. In
real
terms, per-capita income was almost half of what it had
been in
1981. The country's low living standards are reflected in
nutrition and housing data. In 1989 each Nicaraguan
consumed
1,524 calories and 44 grams of protein a day--well below
minimum
recommended allowances. Fewer than one in five urban
households
had sufficient income to purchase a minimum "market
basket," as
defined by the government. In the mid-1980s, 55 percent of
urban
houses and 67 percent of rural houses consisted of a
single room;
nearly half lacked drinking water and plumbing. The
national
housing deficit, according to a 1990 estimate, was 420,600
units.
A 1985 government study classified 69.4 percent of the
population as poor because they were unable to satisfy one
or
more of their basic needs in housing, sanitary services
(water,
sewage, and garbage collection), education, and
employment. The
defining standards for this study were set quite low. For
example, housing was considered substandard if it was
constructed
of discarded materials with dirt floors or if it was
occupied by
more than four persons per room. Predictably, the poverty
rate
was higher in rural areas (85.9 percent) than in urban
areas
(54.8 percent). Regionally, the highest rate was recorded
in the
two eastern autonomous regions on the Caribbean coast
(94.5
percent) and the lowest in urban Managua (49.6 percent).
Conditions in Nicaragua have fluctuated widely with the
economic and political upheavals of recent decades. In the
years
from 1950 to 1975, real GDP per capita more than doubled,
driven
by the rapid growth in exports of coffee, cotton, and
beef.
Capital generated by agro-exports contributed to the
development
of a thriving industrial sector. In the three decades
ending in
1980, the urban population expanded from 35 percent to 53
percent
of the total population.
The benefits of this remarkable period of economic
expansion
have been unevenly distributed, however. Precise data are
not
available, but local observers have noted that the middle
class
blossomed and many new fortunes emerged during these
growth
years. Some benefits did flow to the lower class. For
example, in
the 1950s and 1960s, primary school enrollment grew 400
percent.
Infant mortality, a significant indicator of social
well-being,
declined from 167 deaths per 1,000 live births in the
period from
1950 to 1955 to 100 per 1,000 in the years from 1970 to
1975.
Despite these gains, however, Nicaragua's school
enrollment and
infant mortality statistics remain poor by regional
standards.
The distribution of income in the 1970s was highly skewed,
probably more so than it had been in the past: 30 percent
of
personal income went to the richest 5 percent of
households, but
only 15 percent went to the poorest 50 percent.
Furthermore, some
of the poorest Nicaraguans were the direct victims of
economic
development. As agro-export production expanded in the
Pacific
lowlands and the central highlands, thousands of peasants
were
pushed off their land, many of them to be converted into
lowwage , seasonally employed agricultural laborers. Between
1965 and
1975, the GNP and the number of children under five years
of age
suffering from malnutrition both doubled. Clearly, many
Nicaraguans were getting poorer as their country grew
richer.
The Sandinista revolution brought a new cycle of
upheaval to
Nicaraguan society. The 1978-79 insurrection that toppled
the
Somoza regime left 30,000 to 50,000 people dead, a large
population homeless, several cities devastated by
government
bombing, and extensive damage to the economy, including
the
destruction of much of Managua's modern industrial
district.
After they assumed power, the Sandinistas reversed the
national
priorities established under the Somozas. Their prime
policy
objective in the early years was to promote the welfare of
the
poor majority; national economic growth was a secondary
concern.
Government policy in areas from land reform and nutrition
to
health and education was strongly redistributive. In the
early
1980s, generous spending on social programs was sustained
by a
relatively healthy economy and high levels of foreign aid
from
both Western and Soviet bloc countries.
In the late 1980s, however, the resources available for
social programs declined as foreign aid dried up, the
economy
floundered, and war with the Contras (short for
contrarevolucionares--see Glossary)
compelled the
government to redirect spending toward national defense.
Living
standards sank abruptly during this period. By the end of
the
decade, the average real wage had dropped to less than 10
percent
of its 1985 value, nearly half the labor force was
unemployed or
underemployed, and the poverty rate was rising. Infant
mortality,
which had declined sharply in the early years of
Sandinista rule,
began to rise again. The death rate per 1,000 live births
was 97
in 1978, the last full year of the Somoza regime; 63 in
1985; and
72 in 1989. For several years, the Contra war disrupted
social
and economic life across the country, but especially in
contested
zones like northeastern Nicaragua and the northern central
highlands. In such areas, Contra forces targeted both
economic
and social infrastructure, including agrarian reform
farms,
schools, and health facilities. More than 20,000
Nicaraguans died
in the fighting, and thousands of others were left maimed
or
crippled.
Conditions improved after fighting largely stopped in
1988.
Democratic elections, followed by peaceful transition to a
new
government in 1990, resulted in the lifting of the United
States
trade embargo imposed in 1982, renewal of United States
aid, and
the removal of informal barriers to international credits.
The
Nicaraguan economy was, however, slow to respond to these
changes. GDP continued to decline in 1990, and no growth
was
recorded in 1991. Despite making deep cuts in military
forces,
the new government did not have the resources to restore
spending
on social programs to prewar levels.
Data as of December 1993
|