Abstract

The study included four separate surveys:

1. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2002

2. The survey of Family Income Support (MOP in Serbian) recipients in 2002 These two datasets are published together separately from the 2003 datasets.

3. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2003 (panel survey)

4. The survey of Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 These two datasets are published together.

Objectives

LSMS represents multi-topical study of household living standard and is based on international experience in designing and conducting this type of research. The basic survey was carried out in 2002 on a representative sample of households in Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija). Its goal was to establish a poverty profile according to the comprehensive data on welfare of households and to identify vulnerable groups. Also its aim was to assess the targeting of safety net programs by collecting detailed information from individuals on participation in specific government social programs. This study was used as the basic document in developing Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) in Serbia which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in October 2003.

The survey was repeated in 2003 on a panel sample (the households which participated in 2002 survey were re-interviewed).

Analysis of the take-up and profile of the population in 2003 was the first step towards formulating the system of monitoring in the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The survey was conducted in accordance with the same methodological principles used in 2002 survey, with necessary changes referring only to the content of certain modules and the reduction in sample size. The aim of the repeated survey was to obtain panel data to enable monitoring of the change in the living standard within a period of one year, thus indicating whether there had been a decrease or increase in poverty in Serbia in the course of 2003. [Note: Panel data are the data obtained on the sample of households which participated in the both surveys. These data made possible tracking of living standard of the same persons in the period of one year.]

Along with these two comprehensive surveys, conducted on national and regional representative samples which were to give a picture of the general population, there were also two surveys with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups. In 2002, it was the survey of living standard of Family Income Support recipients with an aim to validate this state supported program of social welfare. In 2003 the survey of Roma from Roma settlements was conducted. Since all present experiences indicated that this was one of the most vulnerable groups on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, but with no ample research of poverty of Roma population made, the aim of the survey was to compare poverty of this group with poverty of basic population and to establish which categories of Roma population were at the greatest risk of poverty in 2003. However, it is necessary to stress that the LSMS of the Roma population comprised potentially most imperilled Roma, while the Roma integrated in the main population were not included in this study.

Geographic coverage

The surveys were conducted on the whole territory of Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample frame for both surveys of general population (LSMS) in 2002 and 2003 consisted of all permanent residents of Serbia, without the population of Kosovo and Metohija, according to definition of permanently resident population contained in UN Recommendations for Population Censuses, which were applied in 2002 Census of Population in the Republic of Serbia. Therefore, permanent residents were all persons living in the territory Serbia longer than one year, with the exception of diplomatic and consular staff.

The sample frame for the survey of Family Income Support recipients included all current recipients of this program on the territory of Serbia based on the official list of recipients given by Ministry of Social affairs.

The definition of the Roma population from Roma settlements was faced with obstacles since precise data on the total number of Roma population in Serbia are not available. According to the last population Census from 2002 there were 108,000 Roma citizens, but the data from the Census are thought to significantly underestimate the total number of the Roma population. However, since no other more precise data were available, this number was taken as the basis for estimate on Roma population from Roma settlements. According to the 2002 Census, settlements with at least 7% of the total population who declared itself as belonging to Roma nationality were selected. A total of 83% or 90,000 self-declared Roma lived in the settlements that were defined in this way and this number was taken as the sample frame for Roma from Roma settlements.

Planned sample: In 2002 the planned size of the sample of general population included 6.500 households. The sample was both nationally and regionally representative (representative on each individual stratum). In 2003 the planned panel sample size was 3.000 households. In order to preserve the representative quality of the sample, we kept every other census block unit of the large sample realized in 2002. This way we kept the identical allocation by strata. In selected census block unit, the same households were interviewed as in the basic survey in 2002. The planned sample of Family Income Support recipients in 2002 and Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 was 500 households for each group.

Sample type: In both national surveys the implemented sample was a two-stage stratified sample. Units of the first stage were enumeration districts, and units of the second stage were the households. In the basic 2002 survey, enumeration districts were selected with probability proportional to number of households, so that the enumeration districts with bigger number of households have a higher probability of selection. In the repeated survey in 2003, first-stage units (census block units) were selected from the basic sample obtained in 2002 by including only even numbered census block units. In practice this meant that every second census block unit from the previous survey was included in the sample. In each selected enumeration district the same households interviewed in the previous round were included and interviewed. On finishing the survey in 2003 the cases were merged both on the level of households and members.

Stratification: Municipalities are stratified into the following six territorial strata: Vojvodina, Belgrade, Western Serbia, Central Serbia (Šumadija and Pomoravlje), Eastern Serbia and South-east Serbia. Primary units of selection are further stratified into enumeration districts which belong to urban type of settlements and enumeration districts which belong to rural type of settlement.

The sample of Family Income Support recipients represented the cases chosen randomly from the official list of recipients provided by Ministry of Social Affairs. The sample of Roma from Roma settlements was, as in the national survey, a two-staged stratified sample, but the units in the first stage were settlements where Roma population was represented in the percentage over 7%, and the units of the second stage were Roma households. Settlements are stratified in three territorial strata: Vojvodina, Beograd and Central Serbia.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

In all surveys the same questionnaire with minimal changes was used. It included different modules, topically separate areas which had an aim of perceiving the living standard of households from different angles. Topic areas were the following: 1. Roster with demography. 2. Housing conditions and durables module with information on the age of durables owned by a household with a special block focused on collecting information on energy billing, payments, and usage. 3. Diary of food expenditures (weekly), including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 4. Questionnaire of main expenditure-based recall periods sufficient to enable construction of annual consumption at the household level, including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 5. Agricultural production for all households which cultivate 10+ acres of land or who breed cattle. 6. Participation and social transfers module with detailed breakdown by programs 7. Labour Market module in line with a simplified version of the Labour Force Survey (LFS), with special additional questions to capture various informal sector activities, and providing information on earnings 8. Health with a focus on utilization of services and expenditures (including informal payments) 9. Education module, which incorporated pre-school, compulsory primary education, secondary education and university education. 10. Special income block, focusing on sources of income not covered in other parts (with a focus on remittances).

Response rate

During field work, interviewers kept a precise diary of interviews, recording both successful and unsuccessful visits. Particular attention was paid to reasons why some households were not interviewed. Separate marks were given for households which were not interviewed due to refusal and for cases when a given household could not be found on the territory of the chosen census block.

In 2002 a total of 7,491 households were contacted. Of this number a total of 6,386 households in 621 census rounds were interviewed. Interviewers did not manage to collect the data for 1,106 or 14.8% of selected households. Out of this number 634 households

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the data for the population pyramid, which represents the population distribution across age and gender, using estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) -Year Estimates. It lists the male and female population for each age group, along with the total population for those age groups. Higher numbers at the bottom of the table suggest population growth, whereas higher numbers at the top indicate declining birth rates. Furthermore, the dataset can be utilized to understand the youth dependency ratio, old-age dependency ratio, total dependency ratio, and potential support ratio.

Key observations

• Youth dependency ratio, which is the number of children aged 0-14 per 100 persons aged 15-64, for , is .
• Old-age dependency ratio, which is the number of persons aged 65 or over per 100 persons aged 15-64, for , is .
• Total dependency ratio for is .
• Potential support ratio, which is the number of youth (working age population) per elderly, for is .

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) -Year Estimates.

Age groups:

• Under 5 years
• 5 to 9 years
• 10 to 14 years
• 15 to 19 years
• 20 to 24 years
• 25 to 29 years
• 30 to 34 years
• 35 to 39 years
• 40 to 44 years
• 45 to 49 years
• 50 to 54 years
• 55 to 59 years
• 60 to 64 years
• 65 to 69 years
• 70 to 74 years
• 75 to 79 years
• 80 to 84 years
• 85 years and over

Variables / Data Columns

• Age Group: This column displays the age group for the population analysis. Total expected values are 18 and are define above in the age groups section.
• Population (Male): The male population in the for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Population (Female): The female population in the for the selected age group is shown in the following column.
• Total Population: The total population of the for the selected age group is shown in the following column.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Population by Age. You can refer the same here

Abstract

Survey based Harmonized Indicators (SHIP) files are harmonized data files from household surveys that are conducted by countries in Africa. To ensure the quality and transparency of the data, it is critical to document the procedures of compiling consumption aggregation and other indicators so that the results can be duplicated with ease. This process enables consistency and continuity that make temporal and cross-country comparisons consistent and more reliable.

Four harmonized data files are prepared for each survey to generate a set of harmonized variables that have the same variable names. Invariably, in each survey, questions are asked in a slightly different way, which poses challenges on consistent definition of harmonized variables. The harmonized household survey data present the best available variables with harmonized definitions, but not identical variables. The four harmonized data files are

a) Individual level file (Labor force indicators in a separate file): This file has information on basic characteristics of individuals such as age and sex, literacy, education, health, anthropometry and child survival. b) Labor force file: This file has information on labor force including employment/unemployment, earnings, sectors of employment, etc. c) Household level file: This file has information on household expenditure, household head characteristics (age and sex, level of education, employment), housing amenities, assets, and access to infrastructure and services. d) Household Expenditure file: This file has consumption/expenditure aggregates by consumption groups according to Purpose (COICOP) of Household Consumption of the UN.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Individual level for datasets with suffix _I and _L
• Household level for datasets with suffix _H and _E

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sampling Frame and Units As in all probability sample surveys, it is important that each sampling unit in the surveyed population has a known, non-zero probability of selection. To achieve this, there has to be an appropriate list, or sampling frame of the primary sampling units (PSUs).The universe defined for the GLSS 5 is the population living within private households in Ghana. The institutional population (such as schools, hospitals etc), which represents a very small percentage in the 2000 Population and Housing Census (PHC), is excluded from the frame for the GLSS 5.

The Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) maintains a complete list of census EAs, together with their respective population and number of households as well as maps, with well defined boundaries, of the EAs. . This information was used as the sampling frame for the GLSS 5. Specifically, the EAs were defined as the primary sampling units (PSUs), while the households within each EA constituted the secondary sampling units (SSUs).

Stratification In order to take advantage of possible gains in precision and reliability of the survey estimates from stratification, the EAs were first stratified into the ten administrative regions. Within each region, the EAs were further sub-divided according to their rural and urban areas of location. The EAs were also classified according to ecological zones and inclusion of Accra (GAMA) so that the survey results could be presented according to the three ecological zones, namely 1) Coastal, 2) Forest, and 3) Northern Savannah, and for Accra.

Sample size and allocation The number and allocation of sample EAs for the GLSS 5 depend on the type of estimates to be obtained from the survey and the corresponding precision required. It was decided to select a total sample of around 8000 households nationwide.

To ensure adequate numbers of complete interviews that will allow for reliable estimates at the various domains of interest, the GLSS 5 sample was designed to ensure that at least 400 households were selected from each region.

A two-stage stratified random sampling design was adopted. Initially, a total sample of 550 EAs was considered at the first stage of sampling, followed by a fixed take of 15 households per EA. The distribution of the selected EAs into the ten regions or strata was based on proportionate allocation using the population.

For example, the number of selected EAs allocated to the Western Region was obtained as: 1924577/18912079*550 = 56

Under this sampling scheme, it was observed that the 400 households minimum requirement per region could be achieved in all the regions but not the Upper West Region. The proportionate allocation formula assigned only 17 EAs out of the 550 EAs nationwide and selecting 15 households per EA would have yielded only 255 households for the region. In order to surmount this problem, two options were considered: retaining the 17 EAs in the Upper West Region and increasing the number of selected households per EA from 15 to about 25, or increasing the number of selected EAs in the region from 17 to 27 and retaining the second stage sample of 15 households per EA.

The second option was adopted in view of the fact that it was more likely to provide smaller sampling errors for the separate domains of analysis. Based on this, the number of EAs in Upper East and the Upper West were adjusted from 27 and 17 to 40 and 34 respectively, bringing the total number of EAs to 580 and the number of households to 8,700.

A complete household listing exercise was carried out between May and June 2005 in all the selected EAs to provide the sampling frame for the second stage selection of households. At the second stage of sampling, a fixed number of 15 households per EA was selected in all the regions. In addition, five households per EA were selected as replacement samples.The overall sample size therefore came to 8,700 households nationwide.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Abstract

The objective of this three-year panel survey is to provide the Government of Nepal with empirical evidence on the patterns of exposure to shocks at the household level and on the vulnerability of households’ welfare to these shocks. It covers 6,000 households in non-metropolitan areas of Nepal, which were interviewed in mid 2016. Being a relatively comprehensive and representative (rural) sample household survey, it can also be used for other research into living conditions of Nepali households in rural areas. This is the entire dataset for the first wave of the survey. The same households will be reinterviewed in mid 2017 and mid 2018. The survey dataset contains a multi-topic survey which was completed for each of the 6,000 households, and a community survey fielded to a senior community representative at the village development committee (VDC) level in each of the 400 PSUs.

Geographic coverage

All non-metropolitan areas in Nepal. Non-metropolitan areas are as defined by the 2010 Census.

Analysis unit

Household, following the NLSS definition.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample frame was all households in non-metropolitan areas per the 2010 Census definition, excluding households in the Kathmandu valley (Kathmandu, Lalitpur and Bhaktapur districts). The country was segmented into 11 analytical strata, defined to correspond to those used in the NLSS III (excluding the three urban strata used there). To increase the concentration of sampled households, 50 of the 75 districts in Nepal were selected with probability proportional to size (the measure of size being the number of households). PSUs were selected with probability proportional to size from the entire list of wards in the 50 selected districts, one stratum at a time. The number of PSUs per stratum is proportional to the stratum's population share, and corresponds closely to the allocations used in the LFS-II and NLSS-III (adjusted for different overall numbers of PSUs in those surveys).

In each of the selected PSUs (administrative wards), survey teams compiled a list of households in the ward based on existing administrative records, and cross-checked with local leaders. The number of households shown in the list was compared to the ward population in the 2010 Census, adjusted for likely population growth. Where the listed population deviated by more than 10% from the projected population based on the Census data, the team conducted a full listing of households in the ward. 15 households were selected at random from the ward list for interviewing, and a further 5 households were selected as potential replacements.

Sampling deviation

During the fieldwork, one PSU in Lapu VDC was inaccessible due to weather, and was replaced by a ward in Hastichaur VDC using PPS sampling on that stratum (excluding the already selected PSUs). All other sampled PSUs were reached, and a full sample of 6,000 households was interviewed in the first wave.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The household questionnaire contained 16 modules: the household roster; education; health; housing and access to facilities; food expenses and home production; non-food expenditures and inventory of durable goods; jobs and time use; wage jobs; farming and livestock; non-agriculture enterprises/activities; migration; credit, savings, and financial assets; private assistance; public assistance; shocks; and anthropometrics (for children less than 5 years). Where possible, the style of questions was kept similar to those used in the NLSS-III questionnaire for comparability reasons. In some cases, new modules needed to be developed. The shocks questionnaire was developed by the World Bank team. A food security module was added based on the design recommended by USAID, and a psychosocial questionnaire was also developed by social development specialists in the World Bank. The section on government and other assistance was also redesigned to cover a broader range of programs and elicit information on details such as experience with enrollment and frequency of payment.

The community questionnaire was fielded to a senior community representative at the VDC level in each of the 400 PSUs. The purpose of the community questionnaire was to obtain further details on access to services in each PSU, to gather information on shocks at the community level, and to collect market price data. The questionnaire had six modules: respondent details; community characteristics; access to facilities; educational facilities; community shocks, household shocks; and market price.

Cleaning operations

These are the raw data entered and checked by the survey firm, formatted to conform to the original questionnaire numbering system and confidentialized. The data were cleaned for spelling errors and translation of Nepali phrases, and suspicious values were checked by calling respondents. No other transformations have taken place.

Response rate

Of the 6,000 originally sampled households, 5,191 agreed to be interviewed. Of the 13.5% of households that were not interviewed, 11.1% were resident but could not be located by the team after two attempts, 0.9% were found to have outmigrated, and 1.4% refused. The 809 replacement households were drawn in order from the randomized list created during sampling (see above).

Definition of the selected demographic and socioeconomic variables.