Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

12.4.1. Comparing number of households in LSMS 2007 and Census 2002 The units of analysis for the 2007 LSMS are individual households and the persons in those households. Since the weights were calculated at the level of the household, the first comparison with the 2002 Serbia Census results was based on the weighted total number of households. Table 4 shows the weighted total number of households by region, urban and rural strata from the 2007 LSMS data, using the final adjusted weights, and the corresponding number of households in the 2002 Census frame for each stratum. The number of households from the Census frame excludes the households in EDs with less than 20 households, so it should be directly comparable to weighted estimates from the LSMS. It can be seen in Table 4 that the overall estimated total number of households from the 2007 LSMS based on the final weights is about 10 percent lower than the corresponding figure from the 2002 Census frame. The difference is larger for the rural strata (12.1 percent) than the urban strata (8.7 percent). These differences probably include an actual decline in the number of households in some strata and may also reflect the quality of the updating of the listing of occupied dwelling units in sample EDs. 12.4.2. Evaluation of update of EDs During the update operation dwelling units were coded as “occupied” when the occupancy status was unclear, to ensure that all households had a chance of being selected; this is taken into account in the weighting procedures. However, it is still possible that some enumerators did not completely cover the ED boundaries during the update operation. In order to examine this possibility, the number of occupied dwelling units from the updated frame in each sample ED was compared to the corresponding number from the 2002 Census frame used as the measure of size for the first stage sample selection with PPS. The differences varied by sample ED. Overall the unweighted number of occupied dwelling units identified in the updated listing for the 510 sample EDs was 5.7 percent lower than the corresponding number from the 2002 Census frame for these EDs. The difference was higher for the rural EDs (8.7 percent) compared to the urban EDs (4.0 percent); this is consistent with the understanding that there is more emigration from the rural areas (both international and to urban areas). 12.4.3. Definition of a household in LSMS 2007 and Census 2002 It is possible that the concept of household may have been applied slightly differently during Census 2002 and LSMS 2007. For example, when two or more families were living in a housing unit, some Census enumerators may have been tempted to consider each one a separate household, regardless of the financial or eating arrangements, since they were paid based on the number of questionnaires completed. The average number of households per occupied dwelling unit for the 2002 Census was 1 036, compared to 1 024 for the 2007 LSMS, so the difference is relatively small. The average number of persons per household in the 2007 LSMS was 3.10, compared to 2.97 in the 2002 Census, so these figures are also relatively close. Therefore it seems a differing concept of “households” does not explain the reduction of households between 2002 and 2007. 12.4.4. RSO population projection of 2006 It is also important to compare the 2007 LSMS weighted estimates of total population by region to corresponding estimates from other sources such as the population projections based on demographic analysis. Table 5 shows the weighted population estimates by region from the survey data and the corresponding RSO population projections for 2006. It can be seen in Table 4 that the 2007 LSMS weighted estimates of total population are 7.0 percent lower than the corresponding projections for 2006. The 2006 projections were compared to those for 2005, indicating a small annual decrease of about 0.4 percent. Therefore it is expected that the population projections for 2007 may show a similar slight decline in the population. In reviewing Table 5 it is also necessary to take into account the population excluded from the sampling frame for the LSMS (such as the population living in EDs with less than 20 170 Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007
households, those living in institutions or group quarters, and persons who are homeless or living in temporary houses). It is estimated that the LSMS sampling frame excludes less than 2 percent of the population of Serbia. The 95 percent confidence interval for the 2007 LSMS estimate of the total population is 6 714 557 to 7 064 104, so the difference between the LSMS estimate and the population projection is statistically significant and cannot be explained by sampling error alone. It should also be pointed out that the 2006 population projections are based on vital statistics (birth and death rate) and do not take into account the population that has emigrated internationally; this probably accounts for part of the difference. Due to the update of occupied dwelling units in sample EDs the LSMS 07 weights should reflect a more recent distribution of the population by region, urban and rural strata. Most of the estimates from the 2007 Serbia LSMS survey data will be in the form of relative indicators, such as averages and proportions, so even if there were deficiencies in the Update for some sample EDs, they should not have a significant effect on the accuracy of the survey results. Table 12.5. Comparison of Weighted Total Population from 2007 LSMS and Corresponding Projected 2006 Population, by region Region 2007 LSMS 2006 Projection % Diff. Belgrade 1 524 150 1 602 861 -4.9 West Serbia 720 351 811 108 -11.2 Šumadija 1 160 963 1 283 780 -9.6 East Serbia 610 775 671 186 -9.0 South East Serbia 933 902 1 040 036 -10.2 Vojvodina 1 939 191 2 002 598 -3.2 Total Serbia 6 889 332 7 411 569 -7.0 12.4.5. Adjustment of 2007 LSMS Weights Based on Projected Population In order to make the weighted estimate of the total population from the 2007 LSMS data more consistent with the projected total population for Serbia based on the vital registration data and demographic analysis, the RSO decided to adjust the weights by a constant factor of 7 411 000/6 889 332, where the denominator of this ratio is the preliminary weighted total population from the LSMS data presented in Table 5. Although this adjustment will increase the survey weighted estimate of the total population to 7 411 000, the relative distribution of the population by region, urban/rural and other characteristics will remain the same. As a result, the survey estimates of relative indicators, such as averages, proportions and other ratios will be the same as those using the previous weights. Table 6 shows the new 2007 LSMS estimates of the total population by region, urban and rural domains based on the adjusted weights. The slight difference from the total projected population at the national level is due to an insignificant rounding error. Methodology 171
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 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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?