Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Understanding the Impact of the Crisis in Bulgaria: Preliminary Results from the Crisis Monitoring Survey . OSI/World Bank May 13 th , 2010. Context. Macroeconomic impact of crisis hit Bulgaria primarily in 2009 Impact of the Crisis: GDP declined 5% in 2009 Microeconomic impacts tend to lag - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Understanding the Impact of the Crisis in Bulgaria:
Preliminary Results from the Crisis Monitoring Survey
OSI/World Bank
May 13th, 2010
ContextMacroeconomic impact of crisis hit
Bulgaria primarily in 2009 Impact of the Crisis: GDP declined 5% in 2009Microeconomic impacts tend to lag
Open Society Institute Sofia and the World Bank collaborated to assess the impact of the crisis on households
Survey conducted in February/March 2010Nationally representative survey of 2400
householdsAn additional 300 households were surveyed
in primarily Roma settlements
Tools for Monitoring the Social Impacts of the Crisis
Micro-simulations of household povertyMonitoring of administrative data (social
benefits, labor markets)Regularly conducted survey dataRapid qualitative assessments Crisis monitoring survey
Household surveys on transmission channels of the crisis (i.e. labor markets), impacts, and coping methods
Crisis Monitoring Surveys around the Region
Governments and donors cooperated to conduct Crisis Monitoring Surveys in a number of countries in Eastern Europe and Central AsiaStand-alone surveys have been conducted in
Turkey, Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Armenia and Georgia
Crisis monitoring modules have been added to Household Budget or Labor Force Surveys in Croatia, Serbia, Latvia, and Armenia
Why use Crisis Response Surveys?
To understand transmission channels of the crisis in detail
To observe the household’s coping strategy and access to informal safety nets
To determine whether formal safety nets are mitigating the impact of the crisis
To measure the impact on household welfare and human development outcomes
Household income shocks are primarily from the labor market
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Pensioner households were the least likely to report a decline in income32% of households
reported a decline income
Most pensioners live in household with workers
Pensioner with no workerPensioner household with workerNon- pen-sioner with workersNon pen-sioner without workers
Pensioner households
Working household with pensioner
Working household
Inactive households
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
INCREASED DECREASED STAYED THE SAME
Workers are affected through multiple labor market channels
Job loss is significant
Reduction in work and salary were key drivers of the labor market transmission channel
Became u
nemplo
yed
Salar
y red
uction
Salar
y red
uction
from re
duced
hours
Aggreg
ate aff
ected
workers
010203040
6.315.6 16.9
34.1
Salary reductions are concentrated in the private (informal) sector
Public Formal Private Sector
Informal Private Sector
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Salary reduction from reduced hours
Salary reduction
Labor market shocks were concentrated in construction and manufacturing
Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Services0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Female
Male
Total workers
The most significant impacts are concentrated among the most vulnerableEducation Level(Job loss concentrated among the least educated)
Became u
nemplo
yed
Salar
y red
uction
from re
duced
hours
Salar
y red
uction
0
5
10
15
20
25
15
22
11
6
19 17
1
1214
Primary Secondary University
12.45
57.9
29.65
Primary or lessSecondaryUniversity
…and distributed unevenly across ethnic groups
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ROMATURKISHBULGARIAN
BULGARIAN
TURKISH
ROMA
Why use Crisis Response Surveys?
To understand transmission channels of the crisis in detail
To observe the household’s coping strategy and access to informal safety nets
To determine whether formal safety nets are mitigating the impact of the crisis
To measure the impact on household welfare and human development outcomes
Poor households were unable to respond to a decline in income by increasing labor supply
Many households try to cope by increasing work
Primarily wealthy households were able to find additional work
Worker found addi-tional work
Non-worker found occasional work
Non-worker found a full-time job
Worker COULD NOT FIND additional work
Non-worker COULD NOT FIND additional
work
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Experienced shockNo measured shock
1 2 3 4 50
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Found a job
Did not find a job
Informal Safety Nets: Transfers
6.7% of households sought but did not receive (additional) informal support
Approximately 20% of households in Bulgaria relied on some form of informal transfers (14% of households received remittances from abroad)
Few households reported an increase or decrease in informal transfers as the result of the crisis
Why use Crisis Response Surveys?
To understand transmission channels of the crisis in detail
To observe the household’s coping strategy and access to informal safety nets
To determine whether formal safety nets are mitigating the impact of the crisis
To measure the impact on household welfare and human development outcomes
Social assistance responded to the crisis
1 2 3 4 50
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percentage of households receiving child allowance, guaranteed minimum
income and heating alllowance Main crisis-affected households
Other households
All households
Why use Crisis Response Surveys?
To understand transmission channels of the crisis in detail
To observe the household’s coping strategy and access to informal safety nets
To determine whether formal safety nets are mitigating the impact of the crisis
To measure the impact on household welfare and human development outcomes
Poor households reported reducing essential expenditures due to economic hardship
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Reduced Expenditures by Asset Quintile
REDUCED CON-SUMPTION OF STA-PLE FOODS
SKIPPED MEALS
REDUCED CON-SUMPTION OF LIGHTING, HEAT AND WATER
STOPPED BUYING NECESSARY CLOTH-ING
REDUCED CONSUMPTION
OF STAPLE FOODS
SKIPPED MEALS REDUCED CON-SUMPTION OF
LIGHTING, HEAT AND WATER
STOPPED BUY-ING NECESSARY
CLOTHING
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Households Expenditure Reductions
Households reduce investments in health during a crisis
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Poor households were particularly likely to reduce expenditures
STOPPED BUYING REG-ULAR MEDICINES
SKIPPED PREVENTATIVE HEALTH VISITS
DID NOT VISIT THE DOCTOR AFTER FALL-ING ILL
CANCELLED HEALTH INSURANCE
STOPPED BUYING REGULAR
MEDICINES
SKIPPED PREVEN-TATIVE HEALTH VIS-
ITS
DID NOT VISIT THE DOCTOR AFTER
FALLING ILL
CANCELLED HEALTH INSURANCE
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Households reduced expenditures in health across a range of measures
Households are reducing expenditures in ways that increase vulnerability to further shocks
WITHDREW FROM PRESCHOOL
REDUCED EDUCATION EXPENDITURES
STOPPED HEALTH IN-SURANCE
STOPPED SOCIAL CON-TRIBUTIONS
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Households moved to grey economy and reduced investments in education
Main crisis-af-fected household
Other households
All households
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Poor households cope with shocks by increasing their vulnerability
WITHDREW FROM PRESCHOOL
REDUCED EDUCATION EXPENDITURES
STOPPED HEALTH INSURANCE
STOPPED SOCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Perceptions of the labor market remain grim
All households
Main crisis-affected households
Other households
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Perceptions of unemployment in the next 12 months
SHARPLY INCREASE
A LITTLE INCREASE
THE SAME
A LITTLE DECREASE
SHARPLY DECREASE
Next StepsFinal report on the first wave of the Crisis
Monitoring Survey
Second round of data will be collected in September 2010—with updated results in November 2010
Third wave of data will be collected in February 2011
Final analysis and report in May 2011
