Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

However, notwithstanding the highlighted changes in the consumption distribution in the observed period, standard errors of the Gini coefficient show that inequality in Serbia remained unchanged in the 2002-2007 period. From the region-type perspective, it is only rural areas that feature a statistically significant inequality decline, whereas inequality in urban areas remained stable. Comparing the urban and rural areas, in 2002 there was no statistically significant difference between the inequality of their consumption, while rural areas had lower inequality of consumption in 2007 than urban areas. The inequality of consumption, measured by the Gini coefficient, estimated at 29.7 in 2007, is somewhat higher that the average of selected Eastern European countries undergoing transition (Table 6). The Gini coefficient value for such countries ranges between 26.2 in Bosnia and Herzegovina to 31 in Romania. Table 1.5. Inequality of consumption per adult equivalent in urban and rural areas (standard errors are presented in brackets) Lower half of distribution Upper part of distribution Interquantile ratio Decile ratio Gini p25/p10 p50/p25 p75/p50 p90/p50 p75/p25 p90/p10 Total 2002 1.35 1.41 1.40 1.92 1.97 3.64 29.29 (0.50) 2007 1.34 1.39 1.41 1.97 1.96 3.66 29.69 (0.61) Urban 2002 1.34 1.43 1.39 1.87 1.99 3.57 28.38 (0.50) 2007 1.34 1.39 1.43 1.99 1.98 3.70 29.53 (0.67) Rural 2002 1.39 1.38 1.37 1.91 1.89 3.64 29.72 (0.78) 2007 1.34 1.35 1.38 1.87 1.87 3.38 27.58 (0.79) Table 1.6. GDP per capita and Gini index for Serbia and selected countries GDP per capita (US$) 2004 Gini index (consumption) Slovenia 16 115 28.4 Hungary 9 962 26.9 Croatia 7 724 29.0 Romania 3 374 31.0 Bulgaria 3 109 29.7 Serbia 2 835* 29.7 Albania 2 439 28.2 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 183 26.2 Source: Human Development Report, 2006, UNDP for selected countries. LSMS 2007 for Serbia. * The data refers to 2006 according to EBRD (2007).. 16 Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007
1.6. Poverty profile in Serbia The poverty profile describes the poor population in Serbia according to different features such as the place of residence of households (location and region), market status of the head of a household and household members, demographic structure of households (e.g. sex, age, household size, number of children), as well as the size of farm owned by the household. A profile of the poor under these features is presented in this part, while part 7 analyses the net effects of these features on the household consumption. The poverty profile will be presented by using the LSMS data from 2007 and it will be compared to the estimates for 2002 obtained by using the same methodology for poverty assessment. 1.7. Regional poverty component Poverty in Serbia is predominantly a rural phenomenon, as in many counties in transition. Poverty was much more present in rural areas than it was in urban areas in 2007 (9.8 percent versus 4.3 percent), as it was five years ago (Table 7). However, poverty in rural areas dropped more than in urban areas over 2002-2007 (8 percentage points versus 6.8 percentage points). Differences in poverty between urban and rural areas remained high over 2002-2007. The depth and severity of poverty in rural areas were considerably higher than in urban areas. In 2007, almost two thirds of the poor lived in rural areas (Table 8). Serbia is a country with deep, lasting and growing regional disparities in economic development 3 . According to the recently adopted National Economic Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia (2007), regional discrepancies in development in Serbia are among the largest in Europe 4 , and they have even increased over the past years. The process of transition to a market economy has intensified the existing economic discrepancies among regions due to thee closing down of a number of large public companies, intensified restructuring and privatization. Apart from the traditionally underdeveloped Southern Serbia region, some new regions emerged with a low level of economic development (East Serbia and some parts of Central Serbia; regional centres of mining and industry in West Serbia). Large regional discrepancies in poverty are in line with the existing discrepancies in their economic development. The poverty index ranged from 3 percent in urban area of Belgrade up to 18.7 percent in rural area of South East Serbia in 2007 (Table 8). Belgrade where the most viable opportunities for economic development thrive is still in a much better position than the rest of the country. On the other hand, central Serbia (without Belgrade) is still the poorest region in Serbia. Vojvodina is still positioned between these two extremes, where the poverty index is slightly below the country’s average (6.1 percent versus 6.6 percent respectively), yet with large discrepancies between urban and rural areas. Rural areas in Central Serbia and Vojvodina are faced with the largest poverty index (10.7 percent and 9.9 percent respectively). Table 1.7. Key poverty indicators by settlement type, 2002-2007 Poverty index, percent Poverty depth, percent Poverty severity, percent 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change 2002 2007 Change Urban 11.2 4.3 -6.8 2.1 0.8 -1.3 0.6 0.3 -0.4 Standard errors 0.86 0.63 0.21 0.16 0.08 0.07 Rural 17.7 9.8 -8.0 4.2 2.0 -2.2 1.5 0.6 -0.9 Standard errors 1.28 1.18 0.37 0.34 0.16 0.13 Total 14.0 6.6 -7.4 3.0 1.3 -1.7 1.0 0.4 -0.6 Standard errors 0.74 0.61 0.20 0.17 0.08 0.07 Note: The changes in percentage points between 2002 and 2007. Poverty profile in Serbia 17
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 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 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?