Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

10.2. Rural poverty in Serbia
Interpretation of rural poverty in Serbia as well
as poverty of agricultural households (especially
those with income coming exclusively from
agricultural activities), is rendered significantly
difficult by lack of precise statistical definition and
classifications. Namely, a statistically-based
social and economic groups of households and
agricultural households in rural areas in Serbia.
The 2007 LSMS results, as well as those of
2002, confirm that the rural poverty represents one
of the crucial characteristics of poverty in Serbia
(Table 1):
Box 1. Rural Vulnerability in Serbia 2003
The most comprehensive assessment regarding poverty in Serbia was produced in 2003 according to the
World Bank methodology. The conclusions are as follows:
1. Poverty is the major contributor of rural vulnerability in Serbia; risks also contribute to rural
households' perceived vulnerability. The fact that poverty accounts for such a high share of
vulnerability suggests that the characteristics of those who are observed to be poor are strikingly
similar to the characteristics of those who are estimated to be vulnerable, whether they are currently
poor or not.
2. Households and regions with a greater share of their livelihood sources depending on agricultural
activities are more at risk of vulnerability and poverty than those with significantly higher share
coming from non-agricultural sources.
3. A high level of human capital such as educational level of household heads significantly decreases
household vulnerability and poverty. Households with a member having higher than secondary face
significantly lower vulnerability than those with lower educational attainment.
4. Households with more and older members are more vulnerable and are more likely to be in poverty.
An aging population, a reduced pool of active workers and the opportunity to generate income,
compounded with low educational attainment, significantly worsen rural poverty in Serbia 1 .
5. Employment in the informal sector leads to less vulnerability and poverty of the rural population.
6. Rural poverty and vulnerability is strongly associated with asset ownership and access to markets.
Families with higher value of durable assets are significantly less vulnerable.
7. Geographic location and topography, natural conditions (such as drought) and access to
communications services are significantly correlated with household vulnerability and poverty.
Ersado L (2006): “Rural Vulnerability in Serbia”,
Human Development Network Europe and Central Asia Region,
The World Bank, Key Emerging and Conceptual Issues
definition of the rural area in Serbia does not exist
(Box 2), while the agricultural household (Box 3) is
defined according to agricultural resources owned
or used and it does not have to be a priori located in
rural areas. Various types of agricultural households
are defined according to income sources of the
family members, as described in Box 3.
There is a lack of other typologies of rural
households and agricultural households that enable
varied analysis of poverty parameters of different
1. The percentage of the poor population living in
rural areas increased from 55 percent in 2002 to
61 percent in 2007;
2. Rural poverty in 2007 was almost halved
compared to 2002 (9.8 percent compared to 17.7
percent) but it still remains twice as high as in
urban areas (9.8 percent compared to 4.3
percent).
3. The gap between rural and urban poverty has
grown from 1.6 times to 2.3 times as a result of
the slower reduction of rural poverty.
Agriculture
135