Living Standards Measurement Survey 2002 (General Population, Wave 1 Panel) and Family Income Support Survey 2002
Serbia and Montenegro, 2002
Get Microdata
Reference ID
SCG_2002_LSMS_v01_M
Producer(s)
Ministry of Social Affairs, Strategic Marketing & Media Research Institute Group (SMMRI)
Collection(s)
Created on
Mar 23, 2011
Last modified
Jan 30, 2020
Page views
344097
Downloads
10290
Identification
Survey ID Number
SCG_2002_LSMS_v01_M
Title
Living Standards Measurement Survey 2002 (General Population, Wave 1 Panel) and Family Income Support Survey 2002
Country/Economy
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Serbia and Montenegro | SCG |
Study type
Living Standards Measurement Study [hh/lsms]
Series Information
This is the first LSMS survey conducted in Serbia. The LSMS 2002 and 2003 form a panel.
Data were also collected for a separate sample of Family Income Support Recipient households using the same questionnaires and instructions.
Data were also collected for a separate sample of Family Income Support Recipient households using the same questionnaires and instructions.
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.
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 separately from the 2002 datasets.
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.
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.
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 separately from the 2002 datasets.
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.
Kind of Data
Sample survey data [ssd]
Scope
Notes
Demography
Gender, age, relation to head of the household, migrations after 1991, residence status of the members, marital status, presence in the household, finished school, current activity on own education and activities of all household members. Added questions for Roma sample regarding type of Roma settlement
Durable goods
Type, age, size, state of equipment in the flat/house in which the household lives. Monthly expenditures of the household for flat, outstanding bills, kind and price of heating. State of equipment of the household with durable goods with estimated age and value.
Agriculture
Area and value of agricultural land, receipts from and expenditures in agricultural production. Livestock, present value, consumed in the household and receipts from sale of cattle in previous year. Expenditures on livestock production and estimated net receipts from agricultural holding.
Health
Chronic and acute diseases; Utilization of services, expenditures on treatment in medical institutions according to type: public, private; Visit to pharmacies without visiting the doctor; alternative medicine. Data on outpatient treatment related to previous month, and data on inpatient/hospital treatment related to previous 12 months. Incidence of risky behaviour of the population (smoking, alcohol consumption). (2003); Assessment of the number of physically handicapped persons. (2003)
Daily consumption (Food Expenditures)
Consumption of food during the period of 7 days in which the diary is kept, according to sources of consumption: purchasing, own production and received as a gift. For each kind of food, the diary is filled on quantities consumed, unit measure and prices. In case of goods from own production and goods received as a gift the market value at the moment of consumption is used.
Monthly consumption (Non-Food Expenditures)
Consumption of goods and services other than food. The data mainly relate to the period of one year, however, in case of goods with less frequent purchasing periodicity, the data relate to the previous 3 months or previous year.
Education
Pre-school, compulsory primary, secondary and university education. Level of education, class attended, expenditures by type and supplementary financial sources. Attending the school for children with special needs.
Working activity
Activities in the previous 7 days, activity, form of ownership, kind of work, hours worked and earnings from main and supplementary work. Unemployment according to previous work experience, length of job seeking and way of solving the problem of own unemployment.
Social programs
Utilization of social benefits, breakdown by programs, awareness of social programs and the amounts received, per each social program and according to kinds.
Gender, age, relation to head of the household, migrations after 1991, residence status of the members, marital status, presence in the household, finished school, current activity on own education and activities of all household members. Added questions for Roma sample regarding type of Roma settlement
Durable goods
Type, age, size, state of equipment in the flat/house in which the household lives. Monthly expenditures of the household for flat, outstanding bills, kind and price of heating. State of equipment of the household with durable goods with estimated age and value.
Agriculture
Area and value of agricultural land, receipts from and expenditures in agricultural production. Livestock, present value, consumed in the household and receipts from sale of cattle in previous year. Expenditures on livestock production and estimated net receipts from agricultural holding.
Health
Chronic and acute diseases; Utilization of services, expenditures on treatment in medical institutions according to type: public, private; Visit to pharmacies without visiting the doctor; alternative medicine. Data on outpatient treatment related to previous month, and data on inpatient/hospital treatment related to previous 12 months. Incidence of risky behaviour of the population (smoking, alcohol consumption). (2003); Assessment of the number of physically handicapped persons. (2003)
Daily consumption (Food Expenditures)
Consumption of food during the period of 7 days in which the diary is kept, according to sources of consumption: purchasing, own production and received as a gift. For each kind of food, the diary is filled on quantities consumed, unit measure and prices. In case of goods from own production and goods received as a gift the market value at the moment of consumption is used.
Monthly consumption (Non-Food Expenditures)
Consumption of goods and services other than food. The data mainly relate to the period of one year, however, in case of goods with less frequent purchasing periodicity, the data relate to the previous 3 months or previous year.
Education
Pre-school, compulsory primary, secondary and university education. Level of education, class attended, expenditures by type and supplementary financial sources. Attending the school for children with special needs.
Working activity
Activities in the previous 7 days, activity, form of ownership, kind of work, hours worked and earnings from main and supplementary work. Unemployment according to previous work experience, length of job seeking and way of solving the problem of own unemployment.
Social programs
Utilization of social benefits, breakdown by programs, awareness of social programs and the amounts received, per each social program and according to kinds.
Coverage
Geographic Coverage
The surveys were conducted on the whole territory of Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija).
Producers and sponsors
Primary investigators
| Name |
|---|
| Ministry of Social Affairs |
| Strategic Marketing & Media Research Institute Group (SMMRI) |
Producers
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| The World Bank | Technical assistance |
| Ministry of Education | Technical validation |
| Ministry of Health | Technical validation |
| RSO | Technical validation |
Sampling
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.
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.
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 or 9.9% refused cooperation with interviewers after three attempts, and 472 household were not at home. The number of interviewed persons was 19,725.
Since the aim of the repeated survey in 2003 was to interview a total of 3,000 households, census block unit 301 was included in the sample since it had 3,119 households that were interviewed in the previous survey and a trend of reduction of interviewed households was to be expected. The realized sample in 2003 included 2,548 households. The interviewers did not manage to collect data for 571 selected households or 18.3% of selected households. Out of this number, 266 or 8.5% of households refused cooperation with interviewers after three attempts, and 305 households were not at home, changed the place of residence or were absent at the time when the interview was conducted. The interviewed households included 8,027 persons.
The number of achieved interviews for Family Income Support recipients was 456 households.
The number of achieved interviews of Roma in Roma settlements was 525 households.
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 or 9.9% refused cooperation with interviewers after three attempts, and 472 household were not at home. The number of interviewed persons was 19,725.
Since the aim of the repeated survey in 2003 was to interview a total of 3,000 households, census block unit 301 was included in the sample since it had 3,119 households that were interviewed in the previous survey and a trend of reduction of interviewed households was to be expected. The realized sample in 2003 included 2,548 households. The interviewers did not manage to collect data for 571 selected households or 18.3% of selected households. Out of this number, 266 or 8.5% of households refused cooperation with interviewers after three attempts, and 305 households were not at home, changed the place of residence or were absent at the time when the interview was conducted. The interviewed households included 8,027 persons.
The number of achieved interviews for Family Income Support recipients was 456 households.
The number of achieved interviews of Roma in Roma settlements was 525 households.
Weighting
The proposed sample plan was very complex from the aspect of estimation. Weighting had to be performed for each phase of selection. Special estimates were made for each stratum, and the total estimate was obtained by adding up the estimates on the level of strata.
In the repeated survey carried out in 2003 a correction was performed for non-response. The correction was performed by gender, age and number of household members.
In the repeated survey carried out in 2003 a correction was performed for non-response. The correction was performed by gender, age and number of household members.
Data Collection
Dates of Data Collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2002-05 | 2002-06 |
Data Collection Mode
Face-to-face [f2f]
Data Collection Notes
Survey method:
The survey incorporated a combined method of interviewing - one involving the interviewer (face to face method) and the other was a self-interview. All modules, with the exception of diary of consumption, were filled by the interviewer on the basis of the interview with the respondent. A diary of consumption was left in the household, and it was filled in by the household member in charge of daily purchases. One household member, who was the most familiar with the household expenditures, was chosen within the household, and this member answered the questions concerning the expenditures of all household members. Each individual member gave answers on personal income.
Phases of field work:
Field work of all four surveys consisted of three phases. The first phase involved identification of the household and filling of certain modules, after which the household was instructed how to keep the diary of consumption. In the second phase each household kept the diary individually, while the interviewers were obliged to visit the household at least twice, and eventually help them in filling the diary. In the third phase the interviewer visited the household again, examined the diary to see whether it had been correctly filled, and filled the remaining modules. Distribution of modules according to phases is presented in the following table.
Both in 2002 and 2003 the survey was conducted at the same period of time, from 15.05 to 15.06 which is very important, primarily because of seasonal consumption habits and seasonal prices of fruit and vegetables.
Pilot project:
Prior to execution of the survey a pilot project was organized, in which all supervisors took part. During realization of the pilot project some minor shortcomings were observed, as well as explanations of some questions which were corrected before printing of the final version of questionnaire.
Selection of households in enumeration districts:
Eleven households were selected in each enumeration district. In case that some households could not be approached within the selected households after two attempts, or some of them did not want to give answers, the interviewer contacted his/her controller. The controller tried once again to include the household in the interview. If this failed, then interview of the household was given up. Each household which was not interviewed, either because of unsuccessful attempts of the interviewer to find someone in the household, a priori refusal of the household to be interviewed or some other reason (such as death in the family), the case was evidenced in the control book. In 2002, after the three unsuccessful attempts to find some household member at home the household was replaced by a reserve household. Two replacements were possible in each enumeration district. In the repeated survey in 2003, it was not possible to replace the household.
Authority letter:
Each member of the team possessed authority for work which was shown to the respondents at request, and letter for the head of household and members of the household, which was presented upon entering the household.
Organization of the Field Work for Sample in Roma Settlements:
Field work for interviews with Roma from Roma settlements was somewhat different. In order to approach the respondents in a more direct way and to avoid refusal, Roma NGOs were contacted. Their role was, on the one hand to secure help by providing Roma interviewers, and on the other hand to contact the leaders of Roma settlements where it was required. This was particularly important in some settlements and it enabled cooperation with their residents. Field work in Roma settlements showed that filling out certain parts of the questionnaire was quite problematic. This mainly referred to diaries kept by households: very often the respondents were either illiterate or unable to organize their expenditure within the given categories, so interviewers had to visit some respondents almost on daily basis in order to help them fill out the diaries for previous days. Another problem was that the heads of households were not well informed abut their household members, particularly in cases of multi-member families, older persons, child caretakers, etc. In these cases, the interviewer conducted the interview with more members of the household than planned.
The survey incorporated a combined method of interviewing - one involving the interviewer (face to face method) and the other was a self-interview. All modules, with the exception of diary of consumption, were filled by the interviewer on the basis of the interview with the respondent. A diary of consumption was left in the household, and it was filled in by the household member in charge of daily purchases. One household member, who was the most familiar with the household expenditures, was chosen within the household, and this member answered the questions concerning the expenditures of all household members. Each individual member gave answers on personal income.
Phases of field work:
Field work of all four surveys consisted of three phases. The first phase involved identification of the household and filling of certain modules, after which the household was instructed how to keep the diary of consumption. In the second phase each household kept the diary individually, while the interviewers were obliged to visit the household at least twice, and eventually help them in filling the diary. In the third phase the interviewer visited the household again, examined the diary to see whether it had been correctly filled, and filled the remaining modules. Distribution of modules according to phases is presented in the following table.
Both in 2002 and 2003 the survey was conducted at the same period of time, from 15.05 to 15.06 which is very important, primarily because of seasonal consumption habits and seasonal prices of fruit and vegetables.
Pilot project:
Prior to execution of the survey a pilot project was organized, in which all supervisors took part. During realization of the pilot project some minor shortcomings were observed, as well as explanations of some questions which were corrected before printing of the final version of questionnaire.
Selection of households in enumeration districts:
Eleven households were selected in each enumeration district. In case that some households could not be approached within the selected households after two attempts, or some of them did not want to give answers, the interviewer contacted his/her controller. The controller tried once again to include the household in the interview. If this failed, then interview of the household was given up. Each household which was not interviewed, either because of unsuccessful attempts of the interviewer to find someone in the household, a priori refusal of the household to be interviewed or some other reason (such as death in the family), the case was evidenced in the control book. In 2002, after the three unsuccessful attempts to find some household member at home the household was replaced by a reserve household. Two replacements were possible in each enumeration district. In the repeated survey in 2003, it was not possible to replace the household.
Authority letter:
Each member of the team possessed authority for work which was shown to the respondents at request, and letter for the head of household and members of the household, which was presented upon entering the household.
Organization of the Field Work for Sample in Roma Settlements:
Field work for interviews with Roma from Roma settlements was somewhat different. In order to approach the respondents in a more direct way and to avoid refusal, Roma NGOs were contacted. Their role was, on the one hand to secure help by providing Roma interviewers, and on the other hand to contact the leaders of Roma settlements where it was required. This was particularly important in some settlements and it enabled cooperation with their residents. Field work in Roma settlements showed that filling out certain parts of the questionnaire was quite problematic. This mainly referred to diaries kept by households: very often the respondents were either illiterate or unable to organize their expenditure within the given categories, so interviewers had to visit some respondents almost on daily basis in order to help them fill out the diaries for previous days. Another problem was that the heads of households were not well informed abut their household members, particularly in cases of multi-member families, older persons, child caretakers, etc. In these cases, the interviewer conducted the interview with more members of the household than planned.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires
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).
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).
Access policy
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | URL | |
|---|---|---|---|
| LSMS Data Manager | The World Bank | lsms@worldbank.org | surveys.worldbank.org/lsms |
Access conditions
In receiving these data it is recognized that the data are supplied for use within my organization, and I agree to the following stipulations as conditions for the use of the data:
1. The data are supplied solely for the use described in this form and will not be made available to other organizations or individuals. Other organizations or individuals may request the data directly.
2. Three copies of all publications, conference papers, or other research reports based entirely or in part upon the requested data will be supplied to:
The World Bank
Development Economics Research Group
LSMS Database Administrator
MSN MC3-306
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
tel: (202) 473-9041
fax: (202) 522-1153
e-mail: lsms@worldbank.org
3. The researcher will refer to the 2002 Serbia Living Standards Measurement Study Survey as the source of the information in all publications, conference papers, and manuscripts. At the same time, the Ministry of Social Affairs is not responsable for the estimations reported by the analyst(s).
4. Users who download the data may not pass the data to third parties.
5. The database cannot be used for commercial ends, nor can it be sold.
1. The data are supplied solely for the use described in this form and will not be made available to other organizations or individuals. Other organizations or individuals may request the data directly.
2. Three copies of all publications, conference papers, or other research reports based entirely or in part upon the requested data will be supplied to:
The World Bank
Development Economics Research Group
LSMS Database Administrator
MSN MC3-306
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433, USA
tel: (202) 473-9041
fax: (202) 522-1153
e-mail: lsms@worldbank.org
3. The researcher will refer to the 2002 Serbia Living Standards Measurement Study Survey as the source of the information in all publications, conference papers, and manuscripts. At the same time, the Ministry of Social Affairs is not responsable for the estimations reported by the analyst(s).
4. Users who download the data may not pass the data to third parties.
5. The database cannot be used for commercial ends, nor can it be sold.
Disclaimer and copyrights
Disclaimer
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Metadata production
DDI Document ID
DDI_SCG_2002_LSMS_v01_M
Date of Metadata Production
2010-06-28
DDI Document version
Version 0.2 (March 2011).