Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 10.4. Active agricultural population by type of activities Sex Male Female Total Source: Census 2002 Employed in agricultural activities – producing for the market 10.3.4. Marketability of agricultural households Employed in agricultural activities – own production Manual workers in agriculture 79 377 20 8475 17 738 73.9% 53.1% 72.2% 28030 188803 6813 26.1% 46.9% 27.8% 107407 397278 24551 The marketability of agricultural households is reflected by their ability to create profit. Farms generating greater market surplus have favourable organizational and economic performances and achieve better productivity. In addition to farm performance, marketability also depends on the general situation in agricultural production, accessibility to organized markets, price parity and attained yields. Serbian agriculture is characterized by low marketability and high own production consumption. Small farms, the majority in Serbia, have production that satisfies own needs, reducing their market dependency, but the proportion of own production consumption of food in relation to overall expenditure is extremely high (Graph 13). The data shows that own production consumption accounts for 37 percent of the total food expenditure in agricultural households. The poorest farms satisfy 47 percent of their nutritional needs by own production, while for the richest farms this is 30 percent. Out of total consumption, own production compensates 22 percent of the needs of the poorest and only 9 percent of the richest farms. One can conclude that poorer farms use a part of their production to satisfy their own food needs and their market surplus is insignificant. Data on the percentage of agricultural households generating income from the sale of agricultural products support this and shows that 35.7 percent of farms in 2006 were selling plant products (crops, vegetable, fruit and viticulture products) and timber and 44.3 percent sold livestock and/or livestock products. The greatest marketability of production is achieved by farms from Vojvodina and medium-size farms. In terms of 100% 100% 100% percentages, the differences in the proportion of farms selling products by quintiles of consumption are not significant, but income generated by this trade is several times higher for the richest farms (Graph 14). The greatest profit among farm production is as follows: corn (12 percent of farms sell surplus), fruit (12 percent), wheat (9 percent), and industrial oil (6 percent). Graph 10.13 Share of own production consumption of food expenses and total expenses by quintiles of consumption Total Poverty line 2007 Quintiles of consumption Below Above The poorest 2 3 4 The richest 13,6% 13,3% 26,4% 21,5% 17,2% 14,0% 12,5% 9,1% 36,8% 36,3% 41,3% 36,8% 33,9% 29,9% 51,2% 46,7% Own production of food consumption Own production of total consumption 146 Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007
The greatest profit from animal livestock production is found in West Serbia and Sumadija, especially in large farms. Furthermore, the proportion of farms selling livestock and livestock products falls as income generated from these farms grows. This is because of specialization of production on larger farms (Graph 15). The greatest profit by products is as follows: pigs (24 percent) and livestock products (milk, eggs, etc. - 25 percent). Previous research (Bogdanov N. 2007, REC 2007) indicate that the lack of a market was one of the significant barriers in development of agricultural households for half of households (Graph 16). According to the results of the above mentioned research, poorer farms sell their products to neighbours and on the green market (in villages or towns). Farms with greater surplus (of wheat, industrial oil and fattening livestock) sell their products to cooperatives or buyers/processors, and are bonded by contract and less exposed to market risks. 35.7% 1987 Graph 10.14. Sale of plant products, by quintiles of consumption 37.4% 36.2% 41.7% 34.5% 2785 28.9% 31.0% 2084 1781 1226 763 482 4033 35.2% Below Above The poorest 2 3 4 The richest Total Poverty line 2007 Quintiles of consumption Average household income from selling agricultural products in season 2006 Percentage of agricultural households which have income from selling agricultural products Graph 10.15. Sale of livestock products by quintiles of consumption 44 936 928 42 442 426 45 979 961 46 661 505 48 776 627 937 48 974 43 1354 1166 1932 1647 32 2007 Below Above The poorest 2 3 4 The richest Total Poverty line 2007 Quintiles of consumption Average household income from selling animal products Average household income from selling animals Percentage of agricultural households which have income from selling animals&animal products Agriculture 147
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 and 110: Participation of young people in va
Page 111 and 112: universities, pursuant to approved
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: Graph 10.12. Structure of farms by
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?