Luxembourg stands out as the European leader in quality of life for 2025, achieving a score of 220 on the Quality of Life Index. The Netherlands follows closely behind with 211 points, while Albania and Ukraine rank at the bottom with scores of 104 and 115 respectively. This index provides a thorough assessment of living conditions across Europe, reflecting various factors that shape the overall well-being of populations and extending beyond purely economic metrics. Understanding the quality of life index The quality of life index is a multifaceted measure that incorporates factors such as purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, traffic conditions, and climate, to measure the overall quality of life of a Country. Higher overall index scores indicate better living conditions. However, in subindexes such as pollution, cost of living, and traffic commute time, lower values correspond to improved quality of life. Challenges affecting life satisfaction Despite the fact that European countries register high levels of life quality by for example leading the ranking of happiest countries in the world, life satisfaction across the European Union has been on a downward trend since 2018. The EU's overall life satisfaction score dropped from 7.3 out of 10 in 2018 to 7.1 in 2022. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges such as high inflation. Rising housing costs, in particular, have emerged as a critical concern, significantly affecting quality of life. This issue has played a central role in shaping voter priorities for the European Parliamentary Elections in 2024 and becoming one of the most pressing challenges for Europeans, profoundly influencing both daily experiences and long-term well-being.

The average for 2021 based on 165 countries was 79.81 index points. The highest value was in Bermuda: 212.7 index points and the lowest value was in Syria: 33.25 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

West Virginia and Kansas had the lowest cost of living across all U.S. states, with composite costs being half of those found in Hawaii. This was according to a composite index that compares prices for various goods and services on a state-by-state basis. In West Virginia, the cost of living index amounted to **** — well below the national benchmark of 100. Virginia— which had an index value of ***** — was only slightly above that benchmark. Expensive places to live included Hawaii, Massachusetts, and California. Housing costs in the U.S. Housing is usually the highest expense in a household’s budget. In 2023, the average house sold for approximately ******* U.S. dollars, but house prices in the Northeast and West regions were significantly higher. Conversely, the South had some of the least expensive housing. In West Virginia, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the median price of the typical single-family home was less than ******* U.S. dollars. That makes living expenses in these states significantly lower than in states such as Hawaii and California, where housing is much pricier. What other expenses affect the cost of living? Utility costs such as electricity, natural gas, water, and internet also influence the cost of living. In Alaska, Hawaii, and Connecticut, the average monthly utility cost exceeded *** U.S. dollars. That was because of the significantly higher prices for electricity and natural gas in these states.

• This is the Cost of Living Index by Country Dataset.
• This dataset provides a comparative and detailed overview of living costs across various countries.
• It includes various indices such as Cost of Living, Rent, Cost of Living Plus Rent, Groceries, Restaurant Prices, and Local Purchasing Power of various Countries.
• These indices are used for understanding and comparing the relative affordability and purchasing power in different regions globally.
• This Dataset consists of 7 columns

Columns Discription:

1. Country: The name of the country for which the indices are calculated in this Dataset.
2. Cost of Living Index: Measures the average cost of basic necessities.
3. Rent Index: It Compares the average cost of renting a house or apartment in the country.
4. Cost of Living Plus Rent Index: It Combines both the Cost of Living and Rent indices to provide a comprehensive and detail view of total living expenses.
5. Groceries Index: It measures the average cost of food and other grocery items.
6. Restaurant Price Index: It Compares the average cost of dining out at restaurants.
7. Local Purchasing Power Index: It reflects the relative purchasing power of locals based on their average salary and cost of living in the country. ## Usefulness of the Dataset:

• Comparative Analysis: It allows individuals, businesses, and policymakers to compare living costs across different countries and it helps in decision-making.
• Cost Estimation: It is useful for travelers in estimating the cost of living in various destinations.
• Economic Insights: It Provides insights into economic disparities, affordability, and local purchasing power globally.
• Policy Formulation: It helps governments and organizations in understanding economic challenges and formulating policies related to cost of living adjustments and economic development strategies. However,this dataset serves as a valuable resource in understanding global economic trends and making informed decisions related to economic policy.

https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-user-content/o/inbox%2F17226110%2Fc8d092a37a66b3fc3897fc671d74bc48%2F_09f5fbd8-4566-46ef-b658-44953a3d05c3.jpg?generation=1720022643642422&alt=media" alt="">

A table comparing the cost of living in various European Union countries, including expenses for rent, utilities, food, and transportation in major cities

As of 2022, Israel had the highest price level index among listed countries, amounting to 138, with 100 being the average of OECD countries. Switzerland and Iceland followed on the places behind. On the other hand, Turkey and India had the lowest price levels compared to the OECD average. This price index shows differences in price levels in different countries. Another very popular index indicating the value of money is the Big Mac index, showing how much a Big Mac costs in different countries. This list was also topped by Switzerland in 2023.

As of September 2024, Mumbai had the highest cost of living among other cities in the country, with an index value of 26.5. Gurgaon, a satellite city of Delhi and part of the National Capital Region (NCR) followed it with an index value of 25.1.  What is cost of living? The cost of living varies depending on geographical regions and factors that affect the cost of living in an area include housing, food, utilities, clothing, childcare, and fuel among others. The cost of living is calculated based on different measures such as the consumer price index (CPI), living cost indexes, and wage price index. CPI refers to the change in the value of consumer goods and services. The wage price index, on the other hand, measures the change in labor services prices due to market pressures. Lastly, the living cost indexes calculate the impact of changing costs on different households. The relationship between wages and costs determines affordability and shifts in the cost of living. Mumbai tops the list Mumbai usually tops the list of most expensive cities in India. As the financial and entertainment hub of the country, Mumbai offers wide opportunities and attracts talent from all over the country. It is the second-largest city in India and has one of the most expensive real estates in the world.

This dataset provides values for LIVING WAGE INDIVIDUAL reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

Table showing the country rankings based in the different metrics analysed

The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions. The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita. The HDI uses the logarithm of income, to reflect the diminishing importance of income with increasing GNI. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean. Refer to Technical notes for more details. The HDI simplifies and captures only part of what human development entails. It does not reflect on inequalities, poverty, human security, empowerment, etc. The HDRO offers the other composite indices as broader proxy on some of the key issues of human development, inequality, gender disparity and poverty. A fuller picture of a country's level of human development requires analysis of other indicators and information presented in the statistical annex of the report.

The aim of the Human Development Report is to stimulate global, regional and national policy-relevant discussions on issues pertinent to human development. Accordingly, the data in the Report require the highest standards of data quality, consistency, international comparability and transparency. The Human Development Report Office (HDRO) fully subscribes to the Principles governing international statistical activities.

The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The 2019 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data shed light on the number of people experiencing poverty at regional, national and subnational levels, and reveal inequalities across countries and among the poor themselves.Jointly developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, the 2019 global MPI offers data for 101 countries, covering 76 percent of the global population. The MPI provides a comprehensive and in-depth picture of global poverty – in all its dimensions – and monitors progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 – to end poverty in all its forms. It also provides policymakers with the data to respond to the call of Target 1.2, which is to ‘reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definition'.

In 2025, Luxembourg was the country with the highest gross domestic product per capita in the world. Of the 20 listed countries, 13 are in Europe and five are in Asia, alongside the U.S. and Australia. There are no African or Latin American countries among the top 20. Correlation with high living standards While GDP is a useful indicator for measuring the size or strength of an economy, GDP per capita is much more reflective of living standards. For example, when compared to life expectancy or indices such as the Human Development Index or the World Happiness Report, there is a strong overlap - 14 of the 20 countries on this list are also ranked among the 20 happiest countries in 2024, and all 20 have "very high" HDIs. Misleading metrics? GDP per capita figures, however, can be misleading, and to paint a fuller picture of a country's living standards then one must look at multiple metrics. GDP per capita figures can be skewed by inequalities in wealth distribution, and in countries such as those in the Middle East, a relatively large share of the population lives in poverty while a smaller number live affluent lifestyles.

The aim of the Human Development Report is to stimulate global, regional and national policy-relevant discussions on issues pertinent to human development. Accordingly, the data in the Report require the highest standards of data quality, consistency, international comparability and transparency. The Human Development Report Office (HDRO) fully subscribes to the Principles governing international statistical activities.

The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The 2019 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data shed light on the number of people experiencing poverty at regional, national and subnational levels, and reveal inequalities across countries and among the poor themselves.Jointly developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, the 2019 global MPI offers data for 101 countries, covering 76 percent of the global population. The MPI provides a comprehensive and in-depth picture of global poverty – in all its dimensions – and monitors progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 – to end poverty in all its forms. It also provides policymakers with the data to respond to the call of Target 1.2, which is to ‘reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definition'.

Abstract

The principal objective of this survey is to collect basic data reflecting the actual living conditions of the population in Tajikistan. These data will then be used for evaluating socio-economic development and formulating policies to improve living conditions.

The first assessment of living standards in Tajikistan was conducted in 1999. This assessment is bringing about data in order to update the 1999 assessment.

The survey collects information on education, health, employment and other productive activities, demographic characteristics, migration, housing conditions, expenditures and assets.

The information gathered is intended to improve economic and social policy in Tajikistan. It should enable decision-makers to 1) identify target groups for government assistance, 2) inform programs of socio-economic development, and 3) analyse the impact of decisions already made and the current economic conditions on households.

Geographic coverage

National coverage. The 2003 data are representative at the regional level (4 regions) and urban/rural.

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• Communites

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Tajikistan Living Standards Survey (TLSS) for 2003 was based on a stratified random probability sample, with the sample stratified according to oblast and urban/rural settlements and with the share of each strata in the overall sample being in proportion to its share in the total number of households as recorded in the 2000 Census. The same approach was used in the TLSS 1999 although there were some differences in the sampling. First the share of each strata in the overall sample in 1999 was determined according to ‘best estimates’, as it was conducted prior to the 2000 Census. Second the TLSS 2003 over-sampled by 40 percent in Dushanbe, 300 percent in rural Gorno-Badakhshan Administrative Oblast (GBAO) and 600 percent in urban GBAO. Third the sample size was increased in 2003 in comparison with 1999 in order to reduce sampling error. In 2003, the overall sample size was 4,156 households compared with 2,000 households in 1999. [Note: Taken from “Republic of Tajikistan: Poverty Assessment Update”, Report No. 30853, Human Development Sector Unit, Central Asia Country Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank, January 2005.]

In addition to the capital city of Dushanbe, the country has several oblasts (regions): (i) Khatlon (comprising Kurban-Tube and Khulyab), which is an agricultural area with most of the country’s cotton growing districts; (ii) the Rayons of Republican Subordination (RRS) with the massive aluminum smelter in the west and agricultural valleys in the east growing crops other than cotton; (iii) Sugd which is the most industrialized oblast; and (iv) Gorno-Badakhshan Administrative Oblast which is mountainous and remote with a small population.

The 2003 data are representative at the regional level (4 regions) and urban/rural.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Abstract

Timor-Leste experienced a fundamental social and economic upheaval after its people voted for independence from Indonesia in a referendum in August 1999. Population was displaced, and public and private infrastructure was destroyed or rendered inoperable. Soon after the violence ceased, the country began rebuilding itself with the support from UN agencies, the international donor community and NGOs. The government laid out a National Development Plan (NDP) with two central goals: to promote rapid, equitable and sustainable economic growth and to reduce poverty.

Formulating a national plan and poverty reduction strategy required data on poverty and living standards, and given the profound changes experienced, new data collection had to be undertaken to accurately assess the living conditions in the country. The Planning Commission of the Timor-Leste Transitional Authority undertook a Poverty Assessment Project along with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA).

This project comprised three data collection activities on different aspects of living standards, which taken together, provide a comprehensive picture of well-being in Timor-Leste. The first component was the Suco Survey, which is a census of all 498 sucos (villages) in the country. It provides an inventory of existing social and physical infrastructure and of the economic characteristics of each suco, in addition to aldeia (hamlet) level population figures. It was carried out between February and April 2001.

A second element was the Timor-Leste Living Standards Measurement Survey (TLSS). This is a household survey with a nationally representative sample of 1,800 families from 100 sucos. It was designed to diagnose the extent, nature and causes of poverty, and to analyze policy options facing the country. It assembles comprehensive information on household demographics, housing and assets, household expenditures and some components of income, agriculture, labor market data, basic health and education, subjective perceptions of poverty and social capital.

Data collection was undertaken between end August and November 2001.

The final component was the Participatory Potential Assessment (PPA), which is a qualitative community survey in 48 aldeias in the 13 districts of the country to take stock of their assets, skills and strengths, identify the main challenges and priorities, and formulate strategies for tackling these within their communities. It was completed between November 2001 and January 2002.

Geographic coverage

National coverage. Domains: Urban/rural; Agro-ecological zones (Highlands, Lowlands, Western Region, Eastern Region, Central Region)

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE SIZE AND ANALYTIC DOMAINS

A survey relies on identifying a subgroup of a population that is representative both for the underlying population and for specific analytical domains of interest. The main objective of the TLSS is to derive a poverty profile for the country and salient population groups. The fundamental analytic domains identified are the Major Urban Centers (Dili and Baucau), the Other Urban Centers and the Rural Areas. The survey represents certain important sub-divisions of the Rural Areas, namely two major agro-ecologic zones (Lowlands and Highlands) and three broad geographic regions (West, Center and East). In addition to these domains, we can separate landlocked sucos (Inland) from those with sea access (Coast), and generate categories merging rural and urban strata along the geographic, altitude, and sea access dimensions. However, the TLSS does not provide detailed indicators for narrow geographic areas, such as postos or even districts. [Note: Timor-Leste is divided into 13 major units called districts. These are further subdivided into 67 postos (subdistricts), 498 sucos (villages) and 2,336 aldeias (sub-villages). The administrative structure is uniform throughout the country, including rural and urban areas.]

The survey has a sample size of 1,800 households, or about one percent of the total number of households in Timor-Leste. The experience of Living Standards Measurement Surveys in many countries - most of them substantially larger than Timor-Leste - has shown that samples of that size are sufficient for the requirements of a poverty assessment.

The survey domains were defined as follows. The Urban Area is divided into the Major Urban Centers (the 31 sucos in Dili and the 6 sucos in Baucau) and the Other Urban Centers (the remaining 34 urban sucos outside Dili and Baucau). The rest of the country (427 sucos in total) comprises the Rural Area. The grouping of sucos into urban and rural areas is based on the Indonesian classification. In addition, we separated rural sucos both by agro-ecological zones and geographic areas. With the help of the Geographic Information System developed at the Department of Agriculture, sucos were subsequently qualified as belonging to the Highlands or the Lowlands depending on the share of their surface above and below the 500 m level curve. The three westernmost districts (Oecussi, Bobonaro and Cova Lima) constitute the Western Region, the three easternmost districts (Baucau, Lautem and Viqueque) the Eastern Region, and the remaining seven districts (Aileu, Ainaro, Dili, Ermera, Liquica, Manufahi and Manatuto) belong to the Central Region.

SAMPLING STRATA AND SAMPLE ALLOCATION

Our next step was to ensure that each analytical domain contained a sufficient number of households. Assuming a uniform sampling fraction of approximately 1/100, a non-stratified 1,800-household sample would contain around 240 Major Urban households and 170 Other Urban households -too few to sustain representative and significant analyses. We therefore stratified the sample to separate the two urban areas from the rural areas. The rural strata were large enough so that its implicit stratification along agro-ecological and geographical dimensions was sufficient to ensure that these dimensions were represented proportionally to their share of the population. The final sample design by strata was as follows: 450 households in the Major Urban Centers (378 in Dili and 72 in Baucau), 252 households in the Other Urban Centers and 1,098 households in the Rural Areas.

SAMPLING STRATEGY

The sampling of households in each stratum, with the exception of Urban Dili, followed a 3-stage procedure. In the first stage, a certain number of sucos were selected with probability proportional to size (PPS). Hence 4 sucos were selected in Urban Baucau, 14 in Other Urban Centers and 61 in the Rural Areas. In the second stage, 3 aldeias in each suco were selected, again with probability proportional to size (PPS). In the third stage, 6 households were selected in each aldeia with equal probability (EP). This implies that the sample is approximately selfweighted within the stratum: all households in the stratum had the same chance of being visited by the survey.

A simpler and more efficient 2-stage process was used for Urban Dili. In the first stage, 63 aldeias were selected with PPS and in the second stage 6 households with equal probability in each aldeia (for a total sample of 378 households). This procedure reduces sampling errors since the sample will be spread more than with the standard 3-stage process, but it can only be applied to Urban Dili as only there it was possible to sort the selected aldeias into groups of 3 aldeias located in close proximity of each other.

HOUSEHOLD LISTING

The final sampling stage requires choosing a certain number of households at random with equal probability in each of the aldeias selected by the previous sampling stages. This requires establishing the complete inventory of all households in these aldeias - a field task known as the household listing operation. The household listing operation also acquires importance as a benchmark for assessing the quality of the population data collected by the Suco Survey, which was conducted in February-March 2001. At that time, the number of households currently living in each aldeia was asked from the suco and aldeia chiefs, but there are reasons to suspect that these figures are biased. Specifically, certain suco and aldeia chiefs may have answered about households belonging, rather than currently living, in the aldeias, whereas others may have faced perverse incentives to report figures different from the actual ones. These biases are believed to be more serious in Dili than in the rest of the country.

Two operational approaches were considered for the household listing. One is the classical doorto-door (DTD) method that is generally used in most countries for this kind of operations. The second approach - which is specific of Timor-Leste - depends on the lists of families that are kept by most suco and aldeia chiefs in their offices. The prior-list-dependent (PLD) method is much faster, since it can be completed by a single enumerator in each aldeia, working most of the time in the premises of the suco or aldeia chief; however, it can be prone to biases depending on the accuracy and timeliness of the family lists.

After extensive empirical testing of the weaknesses and strengths of the two alternatives, we decided to use the DTD method in Dili and an improved version of the PLD method elsewhere. The improvements introduced to the PLD consisted in clarifying the concept of a household "currently living in the aldeia", both by intensive training and supervision of the enumerators and by making its meaning explicit in the form's wording (it means that the household members are regularly eating and sleeping in the aldeia at the time of the operation). In addition,

HSS: HS: Quintile 3: Whole Country data was reported at 3.890 Person in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 3.960 Person for 2012. HSS: HS: Quintile 3: Whole Country data is updated yearly, averaging 4.150 Person from Dec 2002 (Median) to 2014, with 7 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 4.460 Person in 2002 and a record low of 3.890 Person in 2014. HSS: HS: Quintile 3: Whole Country data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by General Statistics Office. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Vietnam – Table VN.H021: Household Living Standard Survey (HSS): Household Size .

Vietnam HSS: MCE: Per Capita: Quintile 5: Whole Country data was reported at 3,534.000 VND th in 2016. This records an increase from the previous number of 3,134.800 VND th for 2014. Vietnam HSS: MCE: Per Capita: Quintile 5: Whole Country data is updated yearly, averaging 1,851.050 VND th from Dec 2002 (Median) to 2016, with 8 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 3,534.000 VND th in 2016 and a record low of 549.000 VND th in 2002. Vietnam HSS: MCE: Per Capita: Quintile 5: Whole Country data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by General Statistics Office. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Vietnam – Table VN.H024: Household Living Standard Survey (HSS): Monthly Consumption Expenditure Per Capita.

The aim of the Human Development Report is to stimulate global, regional and national policy-relevant discussions on issues pertinent to human development. Accordingly, the data in the Report require the highest standards of data quality, consistency, international comparability and transparency. The Human Development Report Office (HDRO) fully subscribes to the Principles governing international statistical activities.

The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The 2019 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data shed light on the number of people experiencing poverty at regional, national and subnational levels, and reveal inequalities across countries and among the poor themselves.Jointly developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, the 2019 global MPI offers data for 101 countries, covering 76 percent of the global population. The MPI provides a comprehensive and in-depth picture of global poverty – in all its dimensions – and monitors progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 – to end poverty in all its forms. It also provides policymakers with the data to respond to the call of Target 1.2, which is to ‘reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definition'.

The aim of the Human Development Report is to stimulate global, regional and national policy-relevant discussions on issues pertinent to human development. Accordingly, the data in the Report require the highest standards of data quality, consistency, international comparability and transparency. The Human Development Report Office (HDRO) fully subscribes to the Principles governing international statistical activities.

The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The 2019 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) data shed light on the number of people experiencing poverty at regional, national and subnational levels, and reveal inequalities across countries and among the poor themselves.Jointly developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) at the University of Oxford, the 2019 global MPI offers data for 101 countries, covering 76 percent of the global population. The MPI provides a comprehensive and in-depth picture of global poverty – in all its dimensions – and monitors progress towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 1 – to end poverty in all its forms. It also provides policymakers with the data to respond to the call of Target 1.2, which is to ‘reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women, and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definition'.

Abstract

In 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina, one of the six republics in former Yugoslavia, became an independent nation. A civil war started soon thereafter, lasting until 1995 and causing widespread destruction and losses of lives. Following the Dayton accord, BosniaHerzegovina (BiH) emerged as an independent state comprised of two entities, namely, the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republika Srpska (RS), and the district of Brcko. In addition to the destruction caused to the physical infrastructure, there was considerable social disruption and decline in living standards for a large section of the population. Alongside these events, a period of economic transition to a market economy was occurring. The distributive impacts of this transition, both positive and negative, are unknown. In short, while it is clear that welfare levels have changed, there is very little information on poverty and social indicators on which to base policies and programs. In the post-war process of rebuilding the economic and social base of the country, the government has faced the problems created by having little relevant data at the household level. The three statistical organizations in the country (State Agency for Statistics for BiH -BHAS, the RS Institute of Statistics-RSIS, and the FBiH Institute of Statistics-FIS) have been active in working to improve the data available to policy makers: both at the macro and the household level. One facet of their activities is to design and implement a series of household series. The first of these surveys is the Living Standards Measurement Study survey (LSMS). Later surveys will include the Household Budget Survey (an Income and Expenditure Survey) and a Labour Force Survey. A subset of the LSMS households will be re-interviewed in the two years following the LSMS to create a panel data set.

The three statistical organizations began work on the design of the Living Standards Measurement Study Survey (LSMS) in 1999. The purpose of the survey was to collect data needed for assessing the living standards of the population and for providing the key indicators needed for social and economic policy formulation. The survey was to provide data at the country and the entity level and to allow valid comparisons between entities to be made. The LSMS survey was carried out in the Fall of 2001 by the three statistical organizations with financial and technical support from the Department for International Development of the British Government (DfID), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Japanese Government, and the World Bank (WB). The creation of a Master Sample for the survey was supported by the Swedish Government through SIDA, the European Commission, the Department for International Development of the British Government and the World Bank. The overall management of the project was carried out by the Steering Board, comprised of the Directors of the RS and FBiH Statistical Institutes, the Management Board of the State Agency for Statistics and representatives from DfID, UNDP and the WB. The day-to-day project activities were carried out by the Survey Management Team, made up of two professionals from each of the three statistical organizations. The Living Standard Measurement Survey LSMS, in addition to collecting the information necessary to obtain a comprehensive as possible measure of the basic dimensions of household living standards, has three basic objectives, as follows: 1. To provide the public sector, government, the business community, scientific institutions, international donor organizations and social organizations with information on different indicators of the population's living conditions, as well as on available resources for satisfying basic needs. 2. To provide information for the evaluation of the results of different forms of government policy and programs developed with the aim to improve the population's living standard. The survey will enable the analysis of the relations between and among different aspects of living standards (housing, consumption, education, health, labour) at a given time, as well as within a household. 3. To provide key contributions for development of government's Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, based on analysed data.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

Households

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

(a) SAMPLE SIZE A total sample of 5,400 households was determined to be adequate for the needs of the survey: with 2,400 in the Republika Srpska and 3,000 in the Federation of BiH. The difficulty was in selecting a probability sample that would be representative of the country's population. The sample design for any survey depends upon the availability of information on the universe of households and individuals in the country. Usually this comes from a census or administrative records. In the case of BiH the most recent census was done in 1991. The data from this census were rendered obsolete due to both the simple passage of time but, more importantly, due to the massive population displacements that occurred during the war. At the initial stages of this project it was decided that a master sample should be constructed. Experts from Statistics Sweden developed the plan for the master sample and provided the procedures for its construction. From this master sample, the households for the LSMS were selected. Master Sample [This section is based on Peter Lynn's note "LSMS Sample Design and Weighting - Summary". April, 2002. Essex University, commissioned by DfID.] The master sample is based on a selection of municipalities and a full enumeration of the selected municipalities. Optimally, one would prefer smaller units (geographic or administrative) than municipalities. However, while it was considered that the population estimates of municipalities were reasonably accurate, this was not the case for smaller geographic or administrative areas. To avoid the error involved in sampling smaller areas with very uncertain population estimates, municipalities were used as the base unit for the master sample. The Statistics Sweden team proposed two options based on this same method, with the only difference being in the number of municipalities included and enumerated.

(b) SAMPLE DESIGN For reasons of funding, the smaller option proposed by the team was used, or Option B. Stratification of Municipalities The first step in creating the Master Sample was to group the 146 municipalities in the country into three strata- Urban, Rural and Mixed - within each of the two entities. Urban municipalities are those where 65 percent or more of the households are considered to be urban, and rural municipalities are those where the proportion of urban households is below 35 percent. The remaining municipalities were classified as Mixed (Urban and Rural) Municipalities. Brcko was excluded from the sampling frame. Urban, Rural and Mixed Municipalities: It is worth noting that the urban-rural definitions used in BiH are unusual with such large administrative units as municipalities classified as if they were completely homogeneous. Their classification into urban, rural, mixed comes from the 1991 Census which used the predominant type of income of households in the municipality to define the municipality. This definition is imperfect in two ways. First, the distribution of income sources may have changed dramatically from the pre-war times: populations have shifted, large industries have closed, and much agricultural land remains unusable due to the presence of land mines. Second, the definition is not comparable to other countries' where villages, towns and cities are classified by population size into rural or urban or by types of services and infrastructure available. Clearly, the types of communities within a municipality vary substantially in terms of both population and infrastructure. However, these imperfections are not detrimental to the sample design (the urban/rural definition may not be very useful for analysis purposes, but that is a separate issue).

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

(a) DATA ENTRY

An integrated approach to data entry and fieldwork was adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Data entry proceeded side by side with data gathering to ensure verification and correction in the field. Data entry stations were located in the regional offices of the entity institutes and were equipped with computers, modem and a dedicated telephone line. The completed questionnaires were delivered to these stations each day for data entry. Twenty data entry operators (10 from Federation and 10 from RS) were trained in two training sessions held for a week each in Sarajevo and Banja Luka. The trainers were the staff of the two entity institutes who had undergone training in the CSPro software earlier and had participated in the workshops of the Pilot survey. Prior to the training, laptop computers were provided to the entity institutes, and the CSPro software was installed in them. The training for the data entry operators covered the following elements:

• Introduction to the LSMS Survey questionnaire; Introduction to the personal computers/ lap top computers; Copying data on diskette and printing of output
• The Data entry programme (CSPro). Understanding of the Round 1 data entry screens (Modules 1-10)
• Practice of Round 1 (data entry trainees enter questionnaires completed by interviewer trainees during practice interviews)
• Understanding of Round 2 Data entry screen (Modules 11-13)
• Practice of Round 2 Data entry screens (data entry trainees entered the questionnaires completed by interviewer trainees)
• Control Procedures; Copying