Children - God's Punishment

The Belgrade Institute of Economic Sciences researchers recently compared the current social-economic status of families with children in Serbia with the status of this category in 1990 and came to statistical conclusion most of the population feels and guesses day in and day out - that raising children has become a genuine adventure and that the standard of living is increasingly threatening the population policy.

Almost half of the families with children in Serbia who were asked about their population outlooks in a similar research (published in early June 1995) said that they would have no more children and that the chief factor preventing them from expanding their families was money. As much as 63% of those who said that they might reconsider having more children specified higher incomes as the chief prerequisite. These data are perfectly "in rhyme" with many others, which clearly show that the living standard has declined to such an extent that the number of children, whose parents can afford a trip to the beach, oranges or toys, is getting smaller and smaller. The research shows that visits to the theater and cinema and the purchase of books have also become a luxury for most children in Serbia.

The first part of the research, headed by Aleksandra Posarac of the Institute of Economic Sciences, analyzes the socio-economic status of families with children in Serbia in 1990 and 1994. The analysis was based on Federal Statistics Bureau Household Consumption Poll data and could be summed up in a story entitled "How We Grew Poor".

The researchers' general conclusion is that during last four years significant changes in the social-economic status of the population in general has happened: decline of the individual and social living standards, particularly among the urban population and families with children, the return to the obsolete way of fulfilling their needs (production to satisfy their own needs), predominant economic insecurity, uncertainty and hopelessness.

A large part of the population has become equal in poverty and highly dependent on the state. 7.7% of the population, or 760,000 people (around 200,000 families) belonged to the category of the poor in 1990. Their daily household income was below four dollars. Almost 260,000 (33.7%) of the poor in this period belonged to miner and industrial worker households, mostly four-member families with only one bread-winner. In the first half of 1994, as many as 2.3 million people were poor. Poverty encompassed all socio-economic categories, particularly families of urban miners and industrial workers, families of people working in trade and catering (27.8%), experts and artists (18.8%), and army and police employees.

All these households, the research shows, would not be poor in normal conditions. They were pushed into poverty by the crisis and, according to many criteria, they still are not really "poor" - their living conditions are relatively decent, they still have spare clothes and shoes. Many of these families would automatically regain their previous, "pre-crisis" status if they found a better paid job. A photo-robot of these families shows that they mostly comprise households with children, with one or both parents on compulsory paid or unpaid leave, making do by working on the side. Most of these households, which are poor "by force of circumstance", have maintained some of their educational, cultural and hygiene habits.

The 1994 analyses show that over one half of the families with children in Serbia could not afford minimal adequate nutrition. The criterion the research applied was three-fourths and not the whole consumer basket. Those unable to earn money to buy even 3/4 of the consumer basket (or 120 dollars a month per household) were classified as poor. In 1994, such families accounted for 69.1% of the poor, and 56.4% of the overall population.

The comparison of the structure of expenditures of households with children in 1990 and 1994 make a very interesting picture. An average family with children spent 36.7% of its income on food in 1990 and did not differ much from families without children, which spent 36.2% of their earnings on food. Four years later, the structure of receipts and expenses of Serbian households changed significantly. Families with children spend as much as 51.6% of their earnings on food (an increase of 40.6%). One should here bear in mind literature pertaining to this area which warns that a sign of absolute poverty is when a household's food expenses account for 60% or more of the overall household expenses.

The analysis of the Institute of Economic Sciences shows that the crisis has differently affected urban and rural families with children. In 1994, city families accounted for 85% of the poor families and rural families accounted for 15%. The rural families with offspring accounted for 33.9% of the overall poverty of families with children in 1990, which shows that urban families with children are the greatest victims of the social and economic crisis. At first glance, rural families with children have improved their status in comparison to their urban counterparts in the process of impoverishment, above all because they were able to increase their food production to satisfy they own nutritional requirements. Researchers say that this does not imply a genuine improvement of these families's economic status, rather the return to the obsolete way of satisfying one's needs. City households mostly have not had this opportunity.

The poll on the financial standing of families with children in Serbia was conducted in June of 1995 encompassing 1495 polled households. The selected were mainly urban families, mostly with children, and mostly of the generation in which they could (given the right circumstances), decide to have at least one more child. The basic assumption which was the starting point of the survey on the population policies was that households from city and suburban areas were more prone to subjective estimates of their chances to raise children, than the classic agricultural, rural households, where the motivation for enlarging their family lies primarily in their needs to preserve their farms.

The prospective "new" parents who participated in this poll otherwise belong, with regards to the total population, to the somewhat financially well off layer. Most of the questioned had solved their housing problem which is usually regarded as the most difficult obstacle for those who are planning a family. Most of the polled, more than 93 percent, live in apartments equipped with plumbing, a bathroom and a water closet. Around 15 percent of the polled possess, for example, a PC and a summer house, and 60 percent even own a car, from which can also be deduced that their financial standing is above average. It is most likely a question of old property which has been previously accumulated and which is in a relatively bad condition today. Such a thing can be deduced when we take into account the income of the polled households.

In 78 percent of the cases the monthly income of the polled is less than 800 dinars per household. That very category of polled households in most cases believes that their income is not adequate enough to cover basic expenses. Households with incomes between 800-1000 dinars (10.5 percent) have approximately given the same answer as to whether they are capable of satisfying their basic needs with that amount. Only a small number of the richest households, which amounted to 11.5 percent of the polled, have in the majority stated that they were capable of covering their basic expenses. Surveyors concluded that the limit of 800 dinars per household (which in June of 1995 amounted to around 350 German Marks), that is somewhat more than 200 dinars per member of household, presents the limit of the subjective feeling of poverty.

This poll of the Institute of Economy from Belgrade encompassed the somewhat more educated than average layer of the population. Amongst the polled, 9.9 percent of the men and 9.7 percent of the women were on compulsory vacations. It also showed that work in the so-called gray economy (regardless of how problematic it was from the standpoint of national economy) has played an important role in rescuing the standard of living from total ruin. According to this survey, those active in the gray economy zone amounted to 45.5 percent of the men, 23.4 percent women and 8.3 percent children of age. In the largest number of cases additional income reached a third of the regularly earned family budget.

As far as the structure of expenses is concerned, the polled population gave their assessments which could be considered as dramatic - one third of the polled spend between 20 and 40 percent of the total family income on their children. Judging by all facts, families put aside for their children as much as they are left with when they cover their most basic living and food expenses, regardless of the number of children they have. Toys are regularly bought for children up to seven years in 11.3 percent of the families, occasionally in 43.2 and rarely in 45.5 percent of the cases. More than 70 percent of the families believe that expenses which accompany elementary school education are too high for the family budget. Only every third family is capable of sending their child on a summer vacation, and in half of the households children see oranges, bananas or certain seasonal fruits only occasionally.

Of the 1495 polled families, only 26.6 percent stated that they were capable of covering their basic expenses. In the group of those who have children every fourth family is "satisfied" with their income. More often than others, farmers are "satisfied". The "satisfied" usually live in houses, do not have additional jobs and are capable of bringing up their small children either on their own, or with the help of their parents. From all the above stated, we can conclude with fair certainty that the children have all that they need. Also, the family's feeling of being prepared for reproduction is closely linked to the subjective feeling that children are being brought up on a relatively high standard.

Participants in this poll answered questions concerning the circumstances in which they live. Only 10 percent of them were satisfied with those circumstances last June, while around a third of the polled believed that we are living in times which offer no opportunities. More than half chose the middle answer - "there are many problems, but we manage somehow." Of those who are dissatisfied by the circumstances in which they live, up to 56.2 percent see the solution to their problem in the improvement of the general standard of living, while more than 20 percent believe that the only solution is a move to a foreign country. The surveyors were concerned by the fact that a double percent larger number of those questioned who see the solution by moving to another country are families without children. Amongst them (families without children) there is a larger percentage of those who answered that we are living in times of no opportunities. One of the possible conclusions is that stimulating births in families which still do not have children will be extremely difficult. As reasons why they don't have children around 40 percent mentioned medical problems, and 24.3 percent financial. A high number of those that were questioned (70.7 percent) stated that they had finished with birth giving, which is a fairly alarming fact if considered that the polled population is fairly young (the average age of the men was 36 years and of the women 33). Amongst them, 47.9 percent consist of those who believe that their financial position is the factor which inhibits them to enlarge their families. By multiplying this percentage with the percent of those who said that they had finished with birth giving, the surveyors reached an estimate that more than a third of those questioned had finished with birth giving owing to bad financial standing.

Directly following low income, as the second inhibiting factor for enlarging a family came uncertain job opportunities, and on top of this list we encounter housing problems.

Of those who have said that they had finished with birth giving, a third is prepared to change such a decision in case their financial standing improves. After an increase in income which would stimulate them to change their decision on enlarging a family, the end of the crisis is mentioned, as well as a solution to housing problems. Every polled family would, otherwise, on average, like to have one more child, so that the majority of the polled answered that the preferable number of children would amount to three.

As of special interest, surveyors stress that less than a third of the polled stated that the crisis which came about following the collapse of Yugoslavia has negatively influenced their decision on having more children. That shows that the polled separate their financial position from the consequences of the crisis. On the other hand, as surveyors have concluded, all of that shows that the inhibiting financial factor is seen as long-term, as something that is not solely a consequence of the crisis which accompanied the collapse of the country. An interesting answer appeared to the question "did fear of an expansion of the war incidents negatively influence your family planning?". More than 70 percent of the polled claimed that it did not and therefore annulled the influence of the crisis on their plans for enlarging their families.

Surveyors claim that in the answers which include a certain political judgment a relatively higher number of dishonest answers is always to be expected and that only by comparing the accurate birth statistics from the previous period could make us see how much these answers were subjective or objective.