Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

widows were aged over 60 and 17 percent of widowers. Cohabiting people tend to be worse off, this may be explained, among other things, by the fact that 12 percent of all cohabiters are Roma (and almost every fifth Roma is living below the poverty line). Only 2.6 percent of the overall population are cohabiting and in the Roma community it is almost 15 percent. 3.3. Activity status Activity status is a key characteristic and a classification used on every Census and socioeconomic survey. The threefold division of population: 1. Active 2. Persons with personal income 3. Supported population reflects the achieved degree of social-economic development of a society and provides the basis for an assessment of likely future development. LSMS 2007 shows some shifts in the ratio of the three categories when their proportions are compared with data from Census 2002 and LSMS 2002 and 2003. The proportion of the active population has grown by 3.5 percentage points, at the “expense” of the persons with personal income (whose proportion declined by 1.5 points) and supported persons (whose proportion declined by 2 percentage points). Within the active population there is a slight increase in the proportion of those working outside regular employment, employers (including the store owners) and farmers, as well as an increase in the proportion of contributing family workers and selfemployed. But there is one percentage point less of employed persons (temporarily and permanently employed) and half a point less for unemployed seeking employment. In all the categories making up the category of people with personal income there was a slight decline – this was headed by pensioners whose proportion decreased by one percentage point compared to 2003. Within the category of the supported population it is worth noting the decline in the proportion of housewives (from 9.6 percent in 2003 to 5.5 percent in 2007). It is usual for the older female population, with a basic education level, primarily in rural areas, to choose this status, . despite the fact many of these women are actively involved in agricultural activities. The status of housewife is chosen more often by the older, patriarchal female population while younger, more emancipated and more educated women are less likely to declare themselves as housewives. The mortality of the elderly female population also directly affects the decline in the proportion of housewives in the overall activity status structure. Despite the decline by around one percentage point compared to 2003, the proportion of employed (regularly employed) persons is still the main type of activity status (24.6 percent). However, the increase in the proportion of people working outside formal employment, employers, individual agricultural workers, self-employed persons, contributing family members and others actively performing an occupation indicates that the labour market trends, under the influence of the transition processes, are slowly shifting from formal to informal sector. Formal employment provides the greatest material security since employed persons have a dominant presence among the population in the 4 th and 5 th consumption quintiles (the richest) while pensioners and individual agricultural workers who have the highest presence in the 1 st and 2 nd – the poorest quintiles. Regionally, the data shows that the proportion of formal employment is high, especially in Belgrade (30 percent). The only exception is South East Serbia where the proportion of children, pupils and students is highest (24.8 percent) then followed by employed people (21.2 percent). Examining the distribution of those living below the poverty line by activity status, the proportion “Child, pupil, student” is particularly large since almost every fourth poor citizen of Serbia is a child, pupil or student (23.7 percent). Pensioners and the unemployed looking for a job make up a large proportion (around 16 percent) of the poor, as well as housewives (11.2 percent). Prominent proportions of poor are also found in the employed category (9.1 percent) and that of individual agricultural workers (8.3 percent). The ranking of activity status varies when examining the activity status of each person in the survey and examining whether they are poor or not and if we compare the ranking by how many poor people are found within each of the activity statuses. The results can be seen in Table 4. 46 Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007
Table 3.4. Ranking of the poor by Activity status and the proportion of the poor within each Activity status (LSMS 2007) Ranking of Poverty by Activity status Proportion of the poor within each category Rank Activity % Rank Activity % 1. Children, pupils, students 23.7 1. Have other personal income (social assistance, alimony etc.) 46.5 2. Pensioners 16.2 2. Others who perform an occupation 3 45.2 3. Unemployed – seeking employment 16.0 3. Incapable of work 16.5 4. Housewives 11.2 4. Housewives 13.4 5. Employed (regularly employed) 9.1 5. Unemployed – seeking employment 12.1 6. Individual agricultural workers 8.3 6. Individual agricultural workers 10.0 7. Working outside regular employment 5.8 7. Obtain income from property 8.9 8. Incapable of work 4.5 8. Contributing family workers 8.3 9. Contributing family workers 1.7 9. Working outside regular employment 8.1 10- Have other personal income (social Others who do not perform an 0.9 10. 7.4 11. assistance, alimony etc.) occupation 10- Others who do not perform an 0.9 11. Children, pupils, students 6.8 11. occupation 12- Stopped working (military service or Self-employed 0.5 12. 5.8 13. serving a prison sentence) 12- Others who perform an occupation 0.5 13. Pensioners 5.3 13. 14. Employers 0.4 14. Self-employed 5.1 15- 16. 15- 16. Stopped working (military service or serving a prison sentence) 0.1 15. Employed (regularly employed) 2.4 Obtain income from property 0.1 16. Employers 0.9 Total: 100.0 3.4. Household size and composition The average household size is three members 4 . The average household of Central Serbia and Vojvodina are not much different than the average European household, especially not the average of a South East European household. Of the total number of households in Serbia (Table 5) most consist of two members (23.8 percent) and the next most prevalent are households with four members (20.2 percent). Similar results were found in 2002 and 2003. Table 3.5. Household size LSMS 2003 LSMS 2007 Single 17.5 18.6 Two members 24.7 23.8 Three members 19.8 19.3 Four members 21.7 20.2 Five and more members 16.4 18.2 Total 100 percent Demographic characteristics of the population 47
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 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?