Search

Poverty in the European Union member states is measured using data from statistical surveys of household income or consumption expenditure and other relevant variables of the household or its members. Poverty analysis in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been based on household consumption expenditure and has been undertaken in irregular time periods according to the dynamic of implementation of the above-mentioned surveys. The first poverty analysis was done on the basis of the Living Standard Measurement Survey (LSMS) in 2001 and 2004 according to the World Bank methodology. With the introduction of the Household Budget Survey in 2004 the European methodology for poverty analysis was adopted and this was applied again in the same survey in 2007 and became the standard for monitoring poverty. Since 2003, European countries have based the poverty and social exclusion analysis on the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC). Recognizing that there are no conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement this survey, but wanting at the same time to follow European regulations and recommendations, statistical institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina have reached a compromise solution with the Extended Household Budget Survey, which includes two additional modules dedicated to the analysis of social cohesion and living standards. This survey will be carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2011 and will be the bridge toward the implementation of EU-SILC in the near future. According to the LSMS, in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2001 poor people accounted for 19.5% of the population, and in 2004 the figure was 17.8%. Based on the Household Budget Survey in Bosnia and Herzegovina poor people accounted for 18.3% of the population in 2004 and 18.2% in 2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper conducts an empirical investigation of whether female-headed households (FHHs) are over-represented amongst the poor compared to male-headed households in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), measured through the consumption dimension of poverty. Apart from self-reported and demographic definitions of headship, which do not make reference to the economic support provided for a household, households whose headship is assigned according to economic definition are included in the analysis. Moreover, the heterogeneity of FHHs is recognised in our study. In this way, the study avoids the main pitfalls associated with similar studies. Since the relationship between poverty and headship has regional and ethnic characteristics, the specific characteristics of BiH in this context are taken into account. Finally, given that our analysis did not find evidence of FHHs being disadvantaged in terms of household consumption, it cannot be argued that policy measures targeting FHHs would be a useful approach to reducing poverty in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]