Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Graph 8.13. Percentage of young people aged 19-24 who attend some form of higher education (LSMS 2002 and 2007) 73 72 34 11 45 46 36 39 19 14 11 26 14 40 Percent participation 2002 Percent com pleted Percent higher 2007 Percent urban primary school or less education Percent other Percent below poverty line Percent above poverty line 8.5.2. LSMS data Trends connected with the coverage of the total population in higher education are also available from LSMS 2002 and 2007. Graph 14 shows data from both surveys indicating the student structure with respect to the education level of the head of household, settlement type and poverty. According to LSMS 2002 and 2007 the number of studying young people aged 19 -24 years has increased by 5 percent during the last five years. The gender gap has widened, as in 2002 there were 38 percent female and 30 percent male students, while in 2007 there were 45 percent women and 32 percent men. In terms of various social and economic indicators, differences in coverage by higher education are still evident. Young people from the poorest families are still represented in fewer numbers (14 percent compared to an average of 39 percent) as well as young people from the least educated families (19 percent compared to an average of 39 percent). In the 2007 LSMS the percentage of students from families receiving MOP was 0.8, while there were 4.6 percent students from families receiving child allowance. There are no Roma among the young people who enter universities immediately after graduating from secondary school. However, it is encouraging that the highest increase in participation is evident for young people from the least educated families (19 percent compared to 11 percent) and that the participation of young people from families below the poverty line has increased by 3 percent. The highest percentage of students is in Belgrade (56 percent) and South East Serbia (48 percent). Over the past five years, the most considerable increase in participation of young people in higher education is evident in South East Serbia (48 percent compared to 32 percent). Reasons should be sought in the network of schools and the percentage of young people in the population, among other reasons. Comparison of data on student accommodation shows that the number of students living with parents has decreased (48 percent compared to 70 percent). In LSMS 2007 there are no students living in students’ and pupils’ dormitories, while in 2002 there were 7 percent. Interestingly, all students from West Serbia live in rented apartments, while 29 percent lived with their parents in 2002. 8.5.3. Further education for adults Education of adults includes all formal and informal programs of education designed for people over 18, who are not pupils or students. Formal education is delivered within the schooling system – from primary schools to postgraduate studies at 108 Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007
universities, pursuant to approved programs of education which lead to a degree with adequate qualifications, competences or levels of education and which are financed from public funds. Informal education refers to all programs, educational activities and learning processes delivered outside the schooling system, Just as formal education, it is also organized and institutional, but it does not lead to social verification of acquired knowledge and achievements through award of national qualifications and levels of education, and most often it is not financed from public funds 23 . The principle of lifelong learning is difficult to apply without a developed and regulated system of informal education, which should complement the formal system. Unfortunately, in Serbia, education of adults still is seen only as compensatory. Thus it is mostly at the level of teaching illiterates how to read and write and helping the ever younger dropouts complete primary education. According to LSMS 2007 12 percent of young people aged 15-24 years attend some form of vocational training. The highest percentage (9.9 percent) attend specific courses (languages, computers, driving) while far fewer young people attend training and seminars. For those aged 19-24, attendance of various programs of informal education dropped by 1 percent over the last five years. Men are still more frequently attending various courses and training (17 percent compared to 4 percent), as well as young people from outside urban areas (16 percent compared to 8 percent). Interestingly, these forms of education mostly include young people from households whose heads have secondary education. Participation of young people from South East Serbia has increased relative to 2002. Since these programs involve additional expenses it is not surprising that youths from the poorest families do not attend informal education. Among employed people aged 15-24, 6 percent of the male population and 14 percent of the female population are students, while 0.4 percent of the male population and 1.4 percent of the female population attend secondary school while working at the same time. This indicates that young women are investing more in further education than young men. According to LSMS 2007 data, 42 percent of the sampled Roma population aged 15-24 has not completed primary school, while this figure is 2 percent for the entire sample of young people. Roma students make up the highest proportion of adult attendees within schools. In order to increase participation of young people in various training, skills and qualifications, it is necessary to expand the number of available programs, their availability, and regulate informal education through a structured approach. 8.6. Financing of education by various stakeholders 8.6.1. Participation of various levels of government in financing of education The percentage of GDP spent and total public expenditure for financing of education represents key indicators. The percentage spent for education out of total public expenditures of Serbia was 10 percent in 2007, which is a 4 percent increase relative to 2002. The percentage of GDP for education was 3.5 percent in 2007, which is considerably below the average in OECD countries (5.4 percent of GDP and 12.9 percent of public expenditure). The Law on Budget for 2007 involves plans to spend 58.4 billion dinars of budgetary finance for education. Out of the above amount, 49 percent is allocated to preschool and primary education, 23 Education percent to secondary education, 18 percent to postsecondary non-university, and university education, 2 percent to the living standard of pupils, and 4 percent to the living standard of students. Other funds are allocated to the operation of the Ministry of Education and Sports Institute for evaluating the quality of education and the Institute for improvement of quality of education. The bulk of those funds are spent for payroll (over 90 percent in primary education), while the average outlays for payroll in EU 24 countries are at 76 percent . In 2008 the Ministry of Education moved to budgeting by programs, which allowed for, among other things, a considerable increase of expenditures on education. The budget for 2008 has allocated 105.7 billion dinars from budget financing, which is 16 percent of total budgeted expenditure of Serbia. 109
Page 1:
Living Standards Measurement Study
Page 4 and 5:
Publisher: Statistical Office of th
Page 6 and 7:
The statistical system of Serbia ha
Page 9:
Living Standards Measurements Study
Page 12 and 13:
1. POVERTY PROFILE IN SERBIA IN THE
Page 14 and 15:
Absolute and extreme poverty of Rom
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1.4. Subjective evaluation of
Page 18 and 19:
However, notwithstanding the highli
Page 20 and 21:
Table 1.8. Poverty by regions in Se
Page 22 and 23:
1.9. Education and demographic feat
Page 24 and 25:
Table 1.14. Poverty by household ty
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.16. Regression of consumpti
Page 28 and 29:
2. The total number of the poor hal
Page 31 and 32:
Natasa Mijakovac Income and expendi
Page 33 and 34:
Aggregate income does not contain r
Page 35 and 36:
In the five-year period, the struct
Page 37 and 38:
’Х’ axis, except for the last
Page 39 and 40:
Таble 2.6. Average monthly expend
Page 41 and 42:
Graph 2.5. Cumulative overview of h
Page 43:
2.5. Conclusion 1. From 2002 - 2007
Page 46 and 47:
3. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF T
Page 48 and 49:
widows were aged over 60 and 17 per
Page 50 and 51:
However, there is an increase in th
Page 52 and 53:
4. MIGRATION IN SERBIA Migration as
Page 54 and 55:
Table 4.4. Migration by type of set
Page 56 and 57:
Table 4.6. Migration characteristic
Page 58 and 59:
Graph 4.3. Households by migratory
Page 60 and 61: 5. HOUSING CONDITIONS AND POSSESION
Page 62 and 63: Table 5.1. Indicators of housing co
Page 64 and 65: Table 5.2. Households by type of he
Page 66 and 67: Table 5.5. Proportion of monthly ex
Page 68 and 69: Table 5.10. Average number of month
Page 71 and 72: Mirosinka Dinkic Social welfare in
Page 73 and 74: municipality level. Again, municipa
Page 75 and 76: 6.1.4. Amounts of benefit received
Page 77 and 78: support from authorities to fill in
Page 79 and 80: It is noticeable that more PWDs age
Page 81 and 82: Graph 6.6. PWDs by education level
Page 83 and 84: 6.2.6. Health care of PWDs LSMS sho
Page 85 and 86: Jasmina Grozdanov Health 7 7.1. Int
Page 87 and 88: educe the negative trends in the he
Page 89 and 90: 7.5. Use of Health Care Services ac
Page 91 and 92: given significantly more by residen
Page 93 and 94: Table 7.1. Average expenditure on s
Page 95 and 96: Snezana Klasnja Education 8 Introdu
Page 97 and 98: study of mother tongue and elements
Page 99 and 100: Graph 8.1. School attendance, relat
Page 101 and 102: distributed geographically. Accordi
Page 103 and 104: 8.3. Primary education 8.3.1. Gener
Page 105 and 106: and only children from families wit
Page 107 and 108: The number of classes and teachers
Page 109: Participation of young people in va
Page 113 and 114: Table 8.1. shows the proportion of
Page 115: Endnotes, Part 8 1 All data refer t
Page 118 and 119: 9. EMPLOYMENT STATUS Despite signif
Page 120 and 121: the past five years did not lead to
Page 122 and 123: Table 9.6. Employment and unemploym
Page 124 and 125: If the economic position of the emp
Page 126 and 127: possible to examine hidden unemploy
Page 128 and 129: Graph 9.7. Employment and unemploym
Page 130 and 131: job. While 26 percent of the popula
Page 132 and 133: Table 9.13. Respondents aged 15+ by
Page 135 and 136: Natalija Bogdanov Agriculture 10 10
Page 137 and 138: 10.2. Rural poverty in Serbia Inter
Page 139 and 140: Box 4. Types of Individual Agricult
Page 141 and 142: Graph 10.2. Income of rural househo
Page 143 and 144: favourable compared to the non-agri
Page 145 and 146: The physical capital of agricultura
Page 147 and 148: Graph 10.12. Structure of farms by
Page 149 and 150: The greatest profit from animal liv
Page 151 and 152: Table 10.5. Features of agricultura
Page 153: 7. Bogdanov N. (2007): «Small Rura
Page 156 and 157: 11. WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES (
Page 158 and 159: Table 11.2. Water and sewerage char
Page 160 and 161:
The improvements varied by both typ
Page 162 and 163:
11.13. Contact with water suppliers
Page 164 and 165:
162 Living Standards Measurements S
Page 166 and 167:
12. METHODOLOGY 12.1. Fieldwork App
Page 168 and 169:
12.2. Data production Data files ar
Page 170 and 171:
p hij = overall probability of sele
Page 172 and 173:
12.4.1. Comparing number of househo
Page 174 and 175:
Table 12.6. New Estimates of Total
Page 176 and 177:
ent paid by the tenants was used. I
Page 178 and 179:
from the separate survey on regiona
Page 180 and 181:
steps. First, the daily caloric val
Page 182 and 183:
poverty in Serbia in 2007 were impr
Page 185 and 186:
Annex А 183
Page 187 and 188:
Annex Table 1.2. Household Sample S
Page 189 and 190:
Annex Table 2.2. Monthly consumptio
Page 191 and 192:
Annex Table 2.4. Monthly income per
Page 193 and 194:
Annex Table 3.3. Household residenc
Page 195 and 196:
Annex Table 3.5. Education level (p
Page 197 and 198:
Annex Table 3.7. Reason why do not
Page 199 and 200:
Annex Table 3.9. Individual economi
Page 201 and 202:
Annex Table 3.12. Marital status of
Page 203 and 204:
Annex Table 3.14. Economic status o
Page 205 and 206:
Annex Table 3.16. Number of househo
Page 207 and 208:
Annex Table 3.19. Households with o
Page 209 and 210:
Annex Table 3.21. Households by num
Page 211 and 212:
Annex Table 5.3. Average number of
Page 213 and 214:
Annex Table 5.6. Households with in
Page 215 and 216:
Annex Table 5.8. Average household
Page 217 and 218:
Annex Table 5.10. Average household
Page 219 and 220:
Annex Table 5.14. Household durable
Page 221 and 222:
Annex Table 5.16. Household ownersh
Page 223 and 224:
Annex Table 6.2. Average amount rec
Page 225 and 226:
Annex Table 6.4. Reasons for non ap
Page 227 and 228:
Annex Table 6.7. Reason did not app
Page 229 and 230:
Annex Table 6.10. Reason did not ap
Page 231 and 232:
Annex Table 7.1. Whether respondent
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Annex Table 7.9. Respondents use of
Page 239 and 240:
Annex Table 7.12. Average frequency
Page 241 and 242:
Table 7.14. Respondents insured in
Page 243 and 244:
Annex Table 7.16. Respondents with
Page 245 and 246:
Annex Table 8.2. Children from 3 to
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Table 8.6. Average number of hours
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Annex Table 8.12. Average amount sp
Page 255 and 256:
Table 8.14. Children from 15 to 19
Page 257 and 258:
Annex Table 8.17. Percentage of cit
Page 259 and 260:
Annex Table 8.20. Average value of
Page 261 and 262:
Annex Table 9.2. Population 15+ by
Page 263 and 264:
Annex Table 9.5. Employed 15+ by Ac
Page 265 and 266:
Annex Table 9.8. Employment by owne
Page 267 and 268:
Annex Table 9.11. Average number of
Page 269 and 270:
Annex Table 9.15. Average amount re
Page 271 and 272:
Annex Table 10.2. Agricultural hous
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Annex Table 10.11. Households which
Page 279 and 280:
Annex Table 10.13. Estimated value
Page 281 and 282:
Annex Table 10.15. Average estimate
Page 283 and 284:
Annex Table 10.18. Agricultural hou
show all

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?