Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1.16. Regression of consumption, 2007 Household features Coefficient Urban Standard errors Coefficient Rural Standard errors Logarithm of the household size -0.073 0.05 -0.145*** 0.05 Logarithm of the household size 2 -0.052** 0.03 0.009 0.03 Share of children 0-6 years of age in a household (dropped) (dropped) Share of children 7-16 0.073 0.10 0.049 0.11 Share of adult men 0.283*** 0.10 0.112 0.11 Share of adult women 0.166* 0.10 0.154 0.12 Share of the senior citizens (>=60) 0.001 0.10 -0.152 0.12 Regions Belgrade (dropped) (dropped) Vojvodina -0.083*** 0.02 -0.145*** 0.04 West Serbia -0.142*** 0.03 -0.257*** 0.04 Šumadija -0.059** 0.03 -0.112*** 0.04 East Serbia -0.167*** 0.03 -0.125*** 0.04 South East Serbia -0.198*** 0.03 -0.265*** 0.04 Farm size 0 hectare (dropped) (dropped)
The assessed factors which significantly influenced the consumption per adult equivalent are the following: the size and demographic composition of households, also location, farm size; education and gender of the household head, labour market status of the household head. Household size had an adverse effect on the household’s consumption: larger households had lower consumption, being similar in all other characteristics. Increased share of adult men and women in households had a positive effect on the consumption in urban areas. With the increased share of adult men in a household, assuming the unaltered household size, consumption per adult equivalent grows with respect to reference category (share of children up to 7 years of age). The same effect on the consumption, but smaller scale, is observed among adult women. The share of other age groups has not significantly influenced the consumption of households in urban areas. In rural areas, the age structure did not have a significant effect on household consumption. The location of a household plays an important role in explaining consumption. Whether urban or rural areas are concerned, persons who live in Belgrade (reference variable) had the largest consumption compared to other regions in Serbia, whereas citizens in South East Serbia had the lowest, under the assumption of other factors being the same. In urban areas, the most affected citizens were those living in South East Serbia given that their consumption was 18 percent lower compared to those living in Belgrade. The situation was similar in rural areas, except that the differences in consumption between the most prosperous and the most chal-lenged region in Serbia were somewhat more acute. In rural areas, persons who live in South East Serbia had the consumption per adult equivalent 23 percent lower than those living in Belgrade. According to these results, it may be inferred that regional discrepancies in consumption are much lower than those shown by the poverty profile (Table 8). The same conclusion has been derived by using the data from HBS 2006 (Krstić and Sulla, 2007). Farming a larger agricultural land significantly increases the household consumption. People who live in households that farm lands exceeding 3 hectares were in a much more favourable position than others. Their consumption per adult equivalent in urban areas was 15 percent higher compared to Poverty profile in Serbia such persons with no farmland and 26 percent higher in rural areas. Consumption was substantially higher in households whose head has a college or university degree. In urban areas, persons living in households whose head have a college or university degree had 68 percent and 98 percent higher consumption, respectively, compared to those whose head had no school or incomplete primary school (reference variable). In rural areas, these two categories had 77 percent and 84 percent higher consumption respectively. These results comply with the results of regression of employees’ wages according to which wages of highly educated are significantly higher compared to lower educational profiles, under the assumption of other aspects of the employees being the same (World Bank, 2006). The gender of a household head in urban areas had a significant effect on the household consumption, under the assumption of the factors being the same. In urban areas, persons living in house-holds where a woman is the head had higher consumption compared to those where a man is the head (by 4.7 percent). In rural areas, the gender of the household head had no significant effect on consumption. The labour market status of the household head significantly influences the household consumption. Households where an unemployed person is the head had considerably lower consumption than those with an employed head: 24 percent and 22 percent in urban and rural areas, respectively, under the assumption of other aspects being the same. This feature is evident even if other factors of the household head are not kept the same (see Table 11 in poverty profile). Inactivity of the household head in urban areas had no significant effect on consumption, whereas in rural areas the consumption of such households was 4 percent lower. 1.12. Conclusion 1. A macroeconomic stability and a considerable and continuous economic growth since 2000 were prerequisites for poverty reduction in Serbia. However, the economic growth was achieved with no employment growth, which certainly attenuated the effect the economic growth may have had upon poverty reduction had the employment growth and unemployment decline been achieved. 25
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 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?