Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

Table 4.5. Migration and educational level (percent)
Non-mover
Migrant
Not poor Poor Not poor Poor
Total 92.6 7.4 94.6 5.4
Preschool children and primary school pupils 91.4 8.6 86.8 13.2
No school 68.3 31.7 78.6 21.4
Incomplete primary school 82.7 17.3 88.8 11.2
Primary school 90.4 9.6 92.7 7.3
One/two year vocational school 90.9 9.1 93.8 6.2
Secondary – three-year and for skilled workers 95.5 4.5 95.3 4.7
Secondary – four-year and for highly skilled workers 96.1 3.9 97.7 2.3
Gymnasium 98.9 1.1 98.8 1.2
Postsecondary non-university institution 99.0 1.0 99.4 0.6
University 100.0 0.0 99.3 0.7
Masters, Doctoral degree 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0
They are followed by Vojvodina (7.5 percent), West
Serbia (8.9 percent) and East Serbia (10 percent)
while the highest percentage can be found in SE
Serbia (16.2 percent).
The ranking of the regions according to the
proportion of poor migrants is as follows: Belgrade
(3.5 percent), Sumadija (4.2 percent) and Vojvodina
(4.3 percent) are below the overall average. West
Serbia is in 4 th position (with 7.6 percent), then SE
Serbia (with 8.8 percent) and East Serbia is last
(with 10 percent).
It is clear from this regional ranking that only
in Belgrade and Sumadija the proportion of the poor
in non-mover population is lower than the
proportion of the poor in the migrant population. It
is interesting to note that the proportion of the poor
citizens within the non-mover and migrant
population is the same (10 percent) in East Serbia.
However, in relation to the overall average, West,
East and SE Serbia have above-the-average
proportions of the poor both in the non-mover and
migrant structure.
Regional differences according to poverty and
migration status resulted from the long-term
demographic and socio economic processes in the
second half of the 20 th century. In order to change
their status, the young left rural settlements, moving
mainly to the big cities or regional centres where it
was easier to find work or because there were more
opportunities for additional schooling and advanced
studies. So, while the urban population was getting
demographically younger, the rural settlements were
slowly disappearing and the rural population was
rapidly ageing. In the mid 60s an economic crisis
led to a reduction of country-to-town migration but
a wave of young able-to-work people moved
Migration in Serbia
abroad, mainly towards the Western European
countries.
The depopulation of rural areas was
accompanied by the ageing process of its
population 1 which brought about the higher
concentration of the poor in the non-mover, rural
population, especially in East and SE Serbia. At the
same time, as Graphs 1 and 2 indicate, there is a
greater relative proportion of poor children younger
than 15 among migrants than among non-movers.
The distribution of type of settlement and
region in relation to poverty status is also correlated
with the educational structure of the population
(Table 5). Belgrade and Vojvodina are the two
regions with an above average proportion of urban
population. At the same time, in these regions there
are a high proportion of people who graduated from
some higher-ranking school than the 8-year primary
school. Having in mind that both in the non-mover
and migrant population the absolute and relative
proportions of the poor decline with the increase in
educational level, it is quite understandable that
these populations are the least affected by poverty.
For example, within the non-mover, as well as the
migrant population, the most affected by poverty are
the persons without primary school while the risk of
poverty is decreasing as the educational level goes
up. LSMS 2007 did not interview any person in the
non-mover population with a university degree,
Masters or Doctoral degree living below the poverty
line. Only 0.7 percent of people with university
degree in the migrant group were poor while there
were no poor people among the persons with
Masters or Doctoral degrees.
53