Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

from the separate survey on regional property market prices in Serbia. The food price index was calculated for 6 basic regions in Serbia, as well as for urban/rural areas within each region. Hence, the regional food price index covered 12 regions. These regions were also used to calculate the regional property price index. As the LSMS did not collect data on prices of goods, the price per unit of a good was calculated as the ratio of expenditures and quantities purchased for each food item. These unit prices were used to calculate the individual food price index for each household. The price of food item k for region r is calculated as the median of the unit price for that good in that region. The reference price p k,0 is calculated as the median unit price of that good for the whole country. If the frequency of the price of a food item in one region is less than 5, or if it has been determined that the value is an outlier (5 times greater than the unit price for the whole country or less than one-fifth of the national unit price), then its regional price is replaced with the country-level price of the good. The regional food price index is the median food price index of all households in the region. Regional food price indices are shown in Table 8. In addition to the 2007 indices, the regional indices used for deflating consumption in 2002 are provided. The variation in regional food prices is significant. As was the case five years ago, in 2007, urban areas in Belgrade were most expensive, while rural areas in South-East Serbia were least expensive. However, the ratio of food prices between the most and least expensive region has increased slightly, from 15.3% in 2002 to 16.8% in 2007. The regional property price indices were calculated using the same method as for the regional food price indices. Expenditure for rent (imputed and actual) was deflated using the regional property price index provided in Table 8. In 2007, dwellings in the urban areas of Belgrade are still most expensive, while the least expensive are dwellings in rural East Serbia, whereas five years ago dwellings in rural areas of Vojvodina used to be the least expensive. The increase in property prices in rural Vojvodina, compared to the national average, can be attributed to the increased investments in that region. Table 12.8. Regional food price and property price indices, 2002-2007 2002 2007 Regions Regional food price index Regional property price index Regional food price index Regional property price index Belgrade, urban 1.054 2.940 1.122 2.563 Belgrade, rural 1.060 0.747 1.064 0.877 Vojvodina, urban 0.976 1.269 1.000 1.060 Vojvodina, rural 0.960 0.424 0.973 0.370 West Serbia, urban 0.959 1.450 1.046 1.073 West Serbia, rural 0.931 0.608 0.986 0.385 Šumadija, urban 0.970 1.627 0.984 1.323 Šumadija, rural 0.929 0.585 0.977 0.540 East Serbia, urban 0.970 1.135 0.987 0.889 East Serbia, rural 0.966 0.501 0.918 0.299 South-East Serbia, urban 0.949 1.417 0.973 1.138 South-East Serbia, rural 0.914 0.447 0.961 0.567 Total 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Source: LSMS 2002, 2007. 12.5.5. Equivalence scale In order to define the level of well-being of individuals, and thereby their poverty level, the total household level consumption collected through surveys must be distributed between household members according to specific criteria. One of the methods for distributing total household consumption to its members is to divide household consumption by household members. This provides consumption per capita and assumes that each household member is accredited an equal share of household resources (consumption). However, this method is inadequate as different 176 Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007
members require different amounts of resources in order to achieve the same level of well-being. Two important facts which are overlooked during the allocation of the same amount of consumption to all household members are: a) the difference in consumption of adults and children; b) economies of scale i.e. the fact that certain costs are shared between household members, such as expenditures on housing, cars or daily newspapers, etc. Consequently, for example, a four-member household which spends 80 000 dinars per month is wealthier than a one-member household which spends 20 000 dinars per month. The economy of scale can be approximated by adjusting the household size to the variable representing the equivalent household size. For example, a household with an equivalent size of 3.5 has to spend 3.5 times more in comparison to an adult in order to achieve the same level of wellbeing as the adult. Apart from household size, sex and age of household members also influence the household consumption required, so equivalence scale can also take into account these characteristics of its members. Equivalence scale can only reflect the size of the household, and therefore depend on one parameter θ. Consumption per adult equivalent POTpj can be expressed as follows6F7 : POT POTpj= θ , n where: POT - household consumption; n - number of household members; and θ - parameter. The specific case where θ=1, represents consumption per capita. OECD uses the value of θ=0.7. For a typical household size in countries of East European and the former Soviet Union, the aforementioned equation represents a simplification of the OECD scale, according to which the first adult=1, the second adult=0.7 and children=0.5. This study uses the OECD scale, which besides the household size, takes into consideration the household composition according to which the first adult = 1, other adults = 0.7 and children up to 13 years of age have a weight of 0.5.7F8 This scale is expressed as follows: OECD equivalence scale =1+0.7*(adults- 1)+0.5*children013 The RSO also used this equivalence scale for its annual poverty estimates based on the Household Budget Survey (HBS) for the period 2003-2006. The shift to this equivalence scale8F9 , which has been Methodology recommended by OECD, contributes significantly to international comparability. 12.5.6. Poverty line Poverty is defined using the absolute poverty line. The absolute poverty line can be defined as the consumption deemed necessary to achieve a minimum standard of living. The poverty line consists of two components: the food poverty line or extreme poverty line, and other household expenditure. Thus the poverty line is defined through two steps. 12.5.7. Food poverty line or the extreme poverty line The first step defines the food poverty line, which is usually used to define the population living in extreme poverty. This line is defined as the consumption required to meet basic subsistence needs. The population whose total consumption is insufficient to meet the basic subsistence needs is considered to be extremely poor. In order to express this as a monetary amount, the average caloric needs of the Serbian population must be calculated, as defined by World Health Organisation standards, as well as the cost per calorie. The food poverty line which is determined at the level of the minimum food basket included 93 food items from the 2007 LSMS. The minimum food basket was calculated using the food consumption of households whose total consumption was located in the first three deciles. Average caloric needs. The average caloric requirements at the national level were determined based on the caloric requirements of different demographic groups, i.e. using the LSMS data from 2007 on population structure by sex and age, and nutritional needs of these demographic groups (Table 9). Caloric requirements of the population by sex and age were based on World Health Organisation (1985) data. The average caloric requirements at the national level calculated using this method amounted to 2 253 calories per day per capita in 2007. Cost per calorie. The cost per calorie is calculated on the basis of food consumption of those people whose consumption per adult equivalent lies within the first three deciles. The cost per calorie is calculated through a number of 177
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 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 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?