14.06.2015 Views

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

Living Standards Measurements Study - Serbia 2002 - 2007

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 4.7. Migration by number of household members, type of settlement, region and poverty status<br />

(percent)<br />

Total<br />

Type of<br />

settlement<br />

Urban Other<br />

Belgrade Vojvodina<br />

West<br />

<strong>Serbia</strong><br />

Region<br />

Sumadija<br />

East<br />

<strong>Serbia</strong><br />

SE<br />

<strong>Serbia</strong><br />

Poverty line<br />

Above Below<br />

Total 2 402 793 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0<br />

Non-mover 656 324 24.0 32.3 23.2 27.0 30.6 28.0 35.0 26.9 26.5 40.4<br />

With 1 member 178 338 5.2 10.7 4.9 7.3 9.8 9.1 9.7 6.8 7.2 11.3<br />

2 149 609 4.9 8.2 4.8 5.4 7.7 8.3 8.0 5.6 5.9 10.9<br />

3 126 487 5.5 4.9 6.2 5.3 4.8 4.2 7.0 4.2 5.2 5.9<br />

4 117 463 5.6 3.8 4.7 5.6 4.8 3.0 5.5 5.7 4.8 6.0<br />

5 and more 84 427 2.8 4.6 2.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 4.8 4.6 3.3 6.2<br />

Migrant 844 792 36.6 33.0 37.9 36.7 31.9 34.4 32.8 31.7 35.4 30.8<br />

With 1 member 265 490 12.6 8.8 13.3 11.7 9.6 10.1 10.4 8.3 11.1 9.9<br />

2 324 124 14.3 12.2 14.1 14.9 11.7 12.4 13.1 12.3 13.6 12.3<br />

3 91 679 3.9 3.6 5.5 3.1 3.3 3.9 3.2 3.1 3.9 2.1<br />

4 89 084 3.5 4.0 3.2 3.9 3.9 4.2 2.7 4.2 3.7 3.6<br />

5 and more 74 416 2.2 4.4 1.9 3.0 3.4 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.0<br />

Mixed 901 677 39.4 34.7 38.9 36.3 37.5 37.6 32.2 41.4 38.1 28.8<br />

With 2 members 95 114 4.8 2.8 5.5 4.5 3.7 2.8 1.7 3.1 4.0 2.9<br />

3 244 275 12.0 7.5 11.4 11.9 9.2 8.5 7.2 8.9 10.6 3.5<br />

4 279 207 12.8 9.8 12.0 11.5 12.3 12.1 9.3 11.6 11.9 6.7<br />

5 and more 283 080 9.9 14.7 10.1 8.5 12.3 14.1 13.9 17.8 11.5 15.8<br />

We can see in Table 7 and Graph 3 that mixed<br />

households are the most frequent (37.5 percent),<br />

then migrant households (35.2 percent), while nonmover<br />

households account for the smallest<br />

proportion (27.3 percent). However, if we take a<br />

look at the migratory structure of households in<br />

relation to the poverty line, the ranking is in reverse<br />

order: highest poverty levels are found in nonmover<br />

households (40.4 percent), and migrant<br />

households (30.8 percent) and the lowest proportion<br />

of the poor is found in mixed households (28.8<br />

percent).<br />

According to the type of settlement, there is a<br />

difference in the distribution of households by<br />

migration status and number of members. Most<br />

households in urban areas are single-member or<br />

two-member migrant households (26.9 percent), as<br />

well as three-member and four-member mixed<br />

households (24.8 percent). Less than every fourth<br />

household in urban areas is non-mover (24 percent).<br />

In rural areas almost every seventh household is a<br />

mixed household consisting of many members (five<br />

or more members), and then follow, according to<br />

Migration in <strong>Serbia</strong><br />

frequency, two-member migrant households (12.2<br />

percent) and single-member non-mover households<br />

(10.7 percent). The higher presence of non-mover<br />

households in rural areas, especially single-member,<br />

non-mover households is largely elderly<br />

households, one of the poorest groups in rural areas.<br />

Regionally, the proportion of migrant and<br />

mixed households in Belgrade and Vojvodina are<br />

almost equal, but with fewer non-mover<br />

households. In West <strong>Serbia</strong>, Sumadija and SE<br />

<strong>Serbia</strong> mixed households dominate but in SE <strong>Serbia</strong><br />

almost 18 percent of households are mixed and<br />

consist of many members. East <strong>Serbia</strong> is the only<br />

region with a high proportion of non-mover<br />

households (35 percent). This is the result of the<br />

socio economic development of this area,<br />

specifically the heavy industry (metals, machinery,<br />

mining etc.) that developed in this region was not<br />

appealing enough to attract a large number of<br />

migrants. On the other hand, economic stagnation in<br />

the mid 1960s and a rise in unemployment set most<br />

of migrants from this region in motion.<br />

55

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!