early warning system 2010

Early WarningSystem

2

E x E c u t i v ES u m m a ry

E a r L y W a r N i N G S y S t E m 2 0 1 0

Supervisor: Armin Sirčo

Project Manager & Editor: Nicola Nixon

Team Leader: Adnan Efendić

Project Associate: Mersiha Ćurčić

Authors: Dina Duraković, Adnan Efendić, Nicola Nixon, Aleksandar Draganić, Senad Slatina, Edin Šabanović

Translation: Ivona Krištić

Cover design, DTP & Layout: Krešimir Kraljević

ISSN: 1986-5678

UNDP is the global development network of the UN, an organisation advocating for change and connect-ing countries through knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. The UNDP is on the ground in 166 countries, working with them on their own solutions to global and national devel-opment challenges. As these countries develop their local capacity they can draw upon the experience of UNDP and its wide range of partners.

Copyright © 2010

by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48 Maršala Tita, 71000, Sarajevo.

Early Warning System

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme.

3


trend tables1. Political stability

2. Trust in institutions

4. Incomes and social protection system

3. Economic conditions and financial stability

November 2009 November 2010

Considering the current political situation, BiH is deteriorating 11.6 -23.2

People who would like to move from BiH 3.7 3.3


Trust in the Presidency - 7.9 22.8

Trust in the Council of Ministers - 9.3 18.0

Trust in the Parliament of FBiH - 9.1 18.2

Trust in the Government of FBiH - 9.6 16.9

Trust in the National Assembly of RS - 7.6 9.7

Trust in the RS Government - 6.6 9.3

Trust in the Office of the High Representative 5.7 1.1

Trust in the European Union 2.9 14.6


Average wage 1 %

Consumer Price Index (CPI) 2.3 %

Average pension 3 %

Minimum pension

Average pension/average wage ratio

Number of persons considering leaving BiH 10 % 7

Willingness to protest against low incomes 10 % 4

Number of households with an income of less than 500 BAM 15 %


Industrial production - 4.0 3.5 %

Number of unemployed 5.0 0.15 %

Retail prices 0.3 2 %

CBBiH foreign currency reserves

Trade balance

4


5. Public and personal security


Perception of unlawful police conduct 5.3 10 %

Level of personal and property crime (as stated in sample) 1.6 5 %

Frequency of citizen's requests for police intervention 4.6

5


ForewordThis issue marks 10 years of Early Warning System reports. For the past decade, UNDP BiH has been providing a unique source of up-to-date analysis of the main political, economic and social trends in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Indeed, the EWS is the longest running publication of its kind in the country and, as such, it represents an invaluable source of longitudinal research– in addition to the number of reports which have been derived from it over the past 10 years.

In this issue, we look at the results of the public opinion poll combined with a number of other sources of data and research from 2010. The results of the poll suggest that the main effects of the global economic crisis in BiH may have largely passed. Although unemployment remains an enormous problem in the country – in particular the dispropor-tionate number of unemployed young people – a number of other economic indicators released by the government statistical agencies are showing signs of improvement. This improvement is backed up by the results of the opinion poll. The global rise in food prices, which has also arrived in BiH, however, will be a challenge in the coming months.

In contrast, the political situation continues to be an area of concern. The failure to form a workable government at the state level more than six months after voting has been completed continues to slow the country’s development, in economic as well as social terms. The elections were, again, marked by divisive rhetoric from some of the largest poli-tical parties. The results of the opinion poll suggest, however, that this rhetoric did not necessarily have any particular impact among the population at large. Indeed, the poll results suggest there are increasing signs of tolerance when it comes to inter-ethnic relations.

This issue of EWS demonstrates, therefore – as have many previous issues – that although the country faces numerous challenges on its current path towards European accession there are also positive signs of change and development which provide cause for cautious optimism.

This will be the last issue of the Early Warning System. After 10 years of tracking trends in BiH and providing analysis of the changing social, political and economic environment, it is time bring the report to a close. There is no longer a need, we believe, for a mechanism such as this, which was originally intended to ‘warn’ the audience of impending crises in the country. All the EWS indices suggest that fundamentally, the situation in the country is stable.

I wish you interesting reading.

Yuri AfanasievUN Resident Coordinator in Bosnia

and Herzegovina

6



ExecutiveSummary

7



Executive Summary2010 will be remembered as the year in which the EU visa regime was abolished for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzego-vina. On the one hand, it will also be remembered as the year in which the first signs appeared of economic recovery, and one in which moderate progress was made in terms of regional cooperation. On the other hand, 2010 also saw a number of fiscal problems which resulted in the involvement of the International Monetary Fund and to the resulting Stand-by Arrangement. The year was marked by numerous problems related to the establishment of the government following the general elections. In spite of these challenges, progress was made in a number of key areas and the overall stability of the country was better than the previous year. This is reflected in the Stability Index shown in Graph E1.1

In the November 2010 public opinion poll, the general stability indices, both chain and composite, recorded growth. The same phenomenon was noted for the majority of other indices monitored here, including those assessing eco-nomic, interethnic, security and political stability. In other words, (slight) progress was recorded in all of the domains monitored in comparison to 2009. This is a sign of improvement and a sign of recovery from the very poor results obta-ined in 2009 – one of the worst this report has recorded in ten years of implementation. There are numerous reasons for such progress yet they are not necessarily positive. The intention of this report is to identify “systemic” problems in BiH and “warn” relevant stakeholders in each of the areas subject to analysis. Thus, the following paragraphs provide a summary of key findings. Further details are available in the ensuing chapters.

The first section of the EWS monitors the political environment in BiH. We noted significant progress in the Political Stability Index in BiH. Such a change may be related to two political events in 2010 – the general elections and the long awaited visa regime liberalisation with the EU countries.

1 Public opinion poll conducted for this project by Prism Research, November 2010

the intention of this

report is to identify

“systemic” problems

in BiH and “warn”

relevant stakeholders

in each of the areas

subject to analysis.

Graph 1. Stability Index for Bosnia and Herzegovina1

Stability Index for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Stab

ility

Inde

x fo

r Bos

nia

and

Her

zego

vina

Survey wave

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

110,00

Feb.05

Jun.05

Sep.05

Nov.05

Apr.06

Jun.06

Sep.06

Nov.06

Apr.07

Sep.07

Nov.07

Mar.08

Jun.08

Okt.08

Nov.08

Nov.09

Nov.10

Chain index 96.83 98.36 96.67 103.45 101.67 98.36 101.67 101.64 98.39 96.72 96.61 103.51 100.00 101.69 100.00 98.33 103.39

Composite index 61 60 58 60 61 60 61 62 61 59 57 59 59 60 60 59 61

8



At the time of writing the state level government has not been formed. Although this kind of stalemate is not somet-hing unfamiliar on the BiH political stage, the establishment of coalitions at these two levels might be more problema-tic than previously. The political platforms of the two major parties conflict, so any future coalition would face major political and economic problems – starting from constitutional changes, to meeting the requirement of the European integration process, all the way to accumulated economic problems.

On the other hand, a very positive event for citizens of BiH such as the EU visa regime liberalization provides hope that political compromise is possible if the issues to be dealt with are removed from the heat of the political sphere and returned to hands of relevant institutions.

Beyond progress on the visa issue, 2010 saw little change in terms of the perception of the public of the functioning of state level institutions. The institutions of the state, despite significant delays, have proven themselves capable of meeting the requirements set forth.

As in previous years, the weakness in the state institutions was mainly caused by the ongoing political crisis and the negative impact it had on almost all institutions. There is a lack of common direction and an absence of a common programme or strategy. In addition, the process of government formation we have witnessed since the elections does not offer many grounds for optimism that this situation will change.

When it comes to the economic situation, the majority of indicators suggest the first signs of recovery from economic crisis, including slight progress in the (chain) Economic Stability Index. Thus in the past eleven months, industrial pro-duction saw growth of about 3% in the Federation of BiH and about 4% in Republika Srpska. Retail prices saw slight growth (inflation of about 2%), and the level of foreign currency reserves recorded a slight increase in the second half of the year. Certain progress was also seen in terms of foreign trade, with an increase in the overall volume as well as the export/import ratio.

However, we can most certainly count the continuing unemployment problem as a negative indicator. In 2010, the unemployment ratio went up. The number of unemployed persons in BiH now accounts for more than half of million and has grown for two years in a row. If we look at the structure of the unemployed population, we can see that the number of women in the overall number of unemployed also increased. In terms of qualifications, the smallest percen-tage of unemployed are persons with higher education, although this number grew in 2010 as well.

Public opinion on the economic conditions in the past year showed that the majority of respondents share the belief that the economic situation had changed little from the previous year, and that 2011 is not likely to bring any significant changes. These results differ little from the 2009 poll, except that 2009 recorded a slightly higher level of optimism.

In terms of the poll results on the business sector, the majority of respondents believe the economic circumstances are worse now than during previous year. These concerns are evident in the fact that a significant percentage of companies were not fully using their full capacities (27 %), and 60 % of companies estimated their financial results as similar as or worse than those from previous year. In addition, some 50% of companies have higher debt than previously and 23% of companies surveyed operated at a loss. These results were worse in the RS than in the FBiH.

Governments at different levels were rated relatively poorly in terms of their support to the business sector. The insti-tutions with the best ratings were those in the area of monetary and fiscal policy (Central Bank of BiH and the Indirect Taxation Authority of BiH), while the worst rated were the Judiciary, Social Funds and the Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH. Respondents listed direct and indirect costs of institutions in BiH as a major obstacle to better business operations, especially in terms of the costs they face in their operations, primarily due to poor institutional efficiency. In response, the majority of respondents use their own, “informal institutions” in order to facilitate their business operations.

In the chapter on incomes and social protection, the data indicates a lack of improvement in 2010 in the socio-econo-mic circumstances of an average BiH household. The reasons for this are likely to be found in the unchanged number of low income households, in similar the expectations of respondents and the in the stagnation of the citizens’ purchasing power. A large number of persons who live in BiH are still considered to be poor, especially among the rural population.

Despite this reporting period being marked by numerous warnings on economic crisis and its effects, and with a rather pessimistic prognosis regarding 2011, the last year passed without significant turbulence. The period was marked by more positive attitudes in terms of economic conditions among the respondents, more so in the FBiH than in RS and among more women than men. The average wage in both entities saw a slight decrease, and the average pension level stagnated. At the same time, the cost of goods became more expensive, suggesting a slight decline in living standards.

When it comes to the

economic situation,

the majority of

indicators suggest

the first signs of

recovery from

economic crisis,

including slight

progress in the

(chain) Economic

Stability index.

9



In order to deal with this situation, the existing social protection system faces huge challenges. The pension system, the healthcare system and the funds for unemployment and child and maternal allowances are entirely dependent on the wages of employees. When the effects of economic crisis effects are felt in decreases in employment and wages, there will be knock-on effects in health, pension and disability insurance.

Governments at different levels were rated relatively poorly in terms of their support to the business sector. The insti-tutions with the best ratings were those in the area of monetary and fiscal policy (Central Bank of BiH and the Indirect Taxation Authority of BiH), while the worst rated were the Judiciary, Social Funds and the Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH. Respondents listed direct and indirect costs of institutions in BiH as a major obstacle to better business operations, especially in terms of the costs they face in their operations, primarily due to poor institutional efficiency. In response, the majority of respondents use their own, “informal institutions” in order to facilitate their business operations.

In the chapter on incomes and social protection, the data indicates a lack of improvement in 2010 in the socio-econo-mic circumstances of an average BiH household. The reasons for this are likely to be found in the unchanged number of low income households, in similar the expectations of respondents and the in the stagnation of the citizens’ purchasing power. A large number of persons who live in BiH are still considered to be poor, especially among the rural population.

Despite this reporting period being marked by numerous warnings on economic crisis and its effects, and with a rather pessimistic prognosis regarding 2011, the last year passed without significant turbulence. The period was marked by more positive attitudes in terms of economic conditions among the respondents, more so in the FBiH than in RS and among more women than men. The average wage in both entities saw a slight decrease, and the average pension level stagnated. At the same time, the cost of goods became more expensive, suggesting a slight decline in living standards. In order to deal with this situation, the existing social protection system faces huge challenges. The pension system, the healthcare system and the funds for unemployment and child and maternal allowances are entirely dependent on the wages of employees. When the effects of economic crisis effects are felt in decreases in employment and wages, there will be knock-on effects in health, pension and disability insurance.

The state government is now very close to endorsing the country’s first Social Inclusion Strategy (SIS), a document which has been in the making for almost three years. The completion of this strategy will mark an important milestone, policy-wise, in the process of EU alignment. At the same time, and more importantly, it represents the potential for tangible changes for the lives of those people who are more marginalized and vulnerable in BiH society. It prioritises improvements in social protection, education, health protection and pensions, while targeting, in particular, families with children and persons with disabilities. In this issue of EWS, we mark this milestone with an interview with a re-presentative of the Directorate for Economic Planning, the institution tasked with the completion of the strategy. The development of this strategy is an important means for integrating principles of social solidarity into government policymaking, as well as for improving institutional capacities for social policy development.

Looking at levels of social exclusion in BiH, in this issue we draw upon the data from the November poll, in particular from the introduction of new questions which improve the analysis of vulnerable groups in BiH. Prior research on some of the key dimensions of social exclusion has shown higher levels of exclusion in rural compared to urban areas, among more women than men and, overwhelmingly in BiH, among the elderly. This bears out in the findings of this issue, in which these groups can be seen to suffer weaker employment prospects and health outcomes. The results also suggest that residents of rural areas and the elderly also express lower levels of life satisfaction than others. Overall, the most striking result is the consistently weaker situation for the elderly.

The results of the November poll can also lead to the conclusion that interethnic relations in BiH have improved. The Interethnic Stability Index grew despite numerous events that could have produced the opposite effect, in particular the election campaign. In particular, for example, support to minority return increased.

Judging by the poll results, people’s sense of security has not changed significantly in the last year. The Security Stabi-lity Index remained at a similar level to that recorded previously. The reports made by High Representative in BiH and the EU Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that the overall security conditions in BiH are also stable. A contributing factor to feelings of security and the absence of ‘isolation’ in this reporting period was the opening of Europe’s border towards the country.

The number of general crime cases dropped in 2010. Positive efforts were also seen in terms of the prevention of illegal manufacturing and the trafficking of drugs, and in the reduction of crimes against property, motor-vehicle thefts and juvenile delinquency. An issue of concern is the increase in the number of family violence cases, however. Results of

the state

government is

now very close

to endorsing the

country’s first Social

inclusion Strategy

(SiS), a document

which has been

in the making for

almost three years.

10



the poll suggest that the police are increasingly able to respond to citizens’ needs, evident in the increased number of persons supporting the work of the police (73%).

BiH achieved limited progress in terms of dealing with corruption which is perceived as still largely present in both the public and private sectors, and which has an adverse impact on the judiciary, the tax and the customs administrations, on public procurements and on privatisation processes. The implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2009-2014 began and the Law on Corruption Prevention and the Anti-Corruption Coordination Agency was adopted. Indica-tions based on opinions expressed by respondents regarding the presence of corruption in terms of bribery and abuse of office among police and in the judiciary also suggest the presence of corruption in these institutions.

Note on data: All the results which are discussed throughout the following report, unless otherwise referenced, refer to data collected through the opinion poll conducted in November 2010 by Prism Research on behalf of UNDP. Full data tables of all results are available in the annexes.

11


contentsContents

Foreword

Executive Summary

I. POLITICAL STABILITY AND CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

1.1 The Political Stability Index

1.2 The reporting period at glance

1.3 More optimism among citizens

1.4 Confidence in the government and the OHR5

1.5 Summary

2. THE ECONOMIC SITUATION

2.1 Index of economic stability increases

2.2 Slight recovery recorded in industrial production

2.3 Increased unemployment remains a major macroeconomic problem

2.4 Retail prices and foreign currency reserves up slightly

2.5 Improvement in the balance of foreign trade

2.6 Public opinion on economic situation slightly improved

2.7 Summary

3. THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Economic situation worsens

3.2 Company capacities under-utilised while the level of debt rises

3.3 Institutional problems hinder business sector development

3.4 High direct and indirect costs of institutions

3.5 Summary

4. SOCIAL EXCLUSION

4.1 Introduction

4.2 A Social Inclusion Strategy for BiH

4.3 Unemployment & exclusion

4.4 Trust, satisfaction & quality of life

4.5 Economic exclusion

4.6 Summary

Sadržaj3

5

7

14

14

15

16

16

18

20

20

20

22

23

25

26

28

30

30

31

32

34

37

39

39

40

42

43

46

48

12


5. INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

5.1 Index of Social Stability remains unchanged

5.2 Number of low income households the same

5.3 Differing expectations in FBiH and RS

5.4 Purchasing power and living standards unchanged

5.5 Perceived economic situation of households worsens

5.6 Summary

6. INTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS

6.1 The Interethnic Stability Index rises

6.2 Regional and local events

6.3 On the acceptability of living with others

6.4 Ethnic identity and mobility

6.5 Opinion of the international community

6.6 Summary

7. PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

7.1 The Security Stability Index unchanged

7.2 General security situation – No change

7.3 Improvements in public safety

7.4 Perceptions of personal security

7.5 Corruption – An ongoing concern

7.6 Perceptions of police activities improve

7.7 Summary

PRILOG: TABELE S PODACIMA

A1. Political Stability and Institutional Confidence

A2. Economic and Financial Stability

A3. Business Environment

A4. Income and Social Welfare

A5. Social Exclusion

A6. Inter-ethnic Relations

A7. Personal and Public Security

50

50

51

52

55

61

62

64

64

65

66

68

69

70

72

72

73

73

75

77

78

80

82

82

110

114

122

131

134

139

13


1. Political stability and confidence in government institutions

14


14

P o L i t i c a L Sta B i L i t y a N d co N F i d E Nc E i N G ov E r N m E N t i N St i t u t i o N S

1. Political stability and confidence in government institutionsDina Duraković

1.1 The Political Stability Index

2010 saw a rise in the level of the Political Stability Index by nine points in comparison to the previous year. This comes as a something of a surprise, considering that 2010 was an election year and the trend in such years in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is towards greater instability due to a combination of more institutional passivity and greater politi-cisation, in the context of electoral campaigns. An effort to explain such an increase would need to take into account the fact that our poll was conducted in November 2010, after the publication of the election results and at the same time as the announcement of the visa regime liberalization for the citizens of BiH. One might suggest with a fair level of certainty, therefore, that the timing of the poll is crucial to understanding this increase and that the conclusion of the election combined with the positive news of visa liberalisation impacted positively on the value of the Political Stability Index. Considering however, that the overall political situation in BiH did not change in any significant way in 2010, only future polls would be able to confirm if this is a one-off occurrence, dependant on the period in which our survey was taken this year. Nevertheless, it is important to note that with the November 2010 survey, we see the highest level of stability in this index since we began reporting on it in 2005.

Graph 1.1. Political Stability Index

Political Stability Index

Polit

ical

Sta

bili

ty In

dex

Survey wave

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

120.00

Feb.05

Jun.05

Sep.05

Nov.05

Apr.06

Jun.06

Sep.06

Nov.06

Apr.07

Sep.07

Nov.07

Mar.08

Jun.08

Okt.08

Nov.08

Nov.09

Nov.10

Chain index 100.00 96.30 94.23 110.20100.00100.00 96.30 107.69 92.86 103.85 96.30 101.92 90.57 104.17102.00 92.16 119.15

Composite index 54 52 49 54 54 54 52 56 52 54 52 53 48 50 51 47 56

Nevertheless, it

is important to

note that with the

November 2010

survey, we see the

highest level of

stability in this index

since we began

reporting on it in

2005.

15


15


1.2 The reporting period at glance

As expected, 2010 shared the fate of all other election years in past ten years. These years tend to hold the following cha-racteristics; a prolonged electoral campaign, a radicalisation of the political scene in addition to higher levels of institutional inactivity. 2010 was no exception in that regard. The strong political rhetoric from 2009 intensified, however, in contrast to some of the previous election years, there was little response from the Office of the High Representative.

The most significant development in the political scene was the increasing alignment between advocates of a third (Croat majority) entity and political forces in the RS with similar views, in this case the SNSD. While advocates of these two positions tend to agree in principle on notions of potential territorial division, they part company over the contours of that division with representatives of the SNSD pointing out that a third entity must not cut into the territory of the RS. Nevertheless this ali-gnment represents an important regrouping of the country’s political forces prior to the forthcoming constitutional changes.

In contrast, Bosniak political elites continued to underline the need to strengthen the state level yet they did not manage to offer any concrete political solution that would lead to the improvement of their position.

The results of the election were generally as had been expected. The domination of the SNSD continued in the RS where they won around 38% of the votes for the National Assembly. The leader of the SNSD, Milorad Dodik, was elected President of the RS, having left his previous position as Prime Minister. In contrast, the election of the Members of the Presidency of BiH was highly indecisive. On the record of votes, the SNSD’s candidate Nebojša Radmanović, has won, with a very small margin (less than 10,000 votes) against his opponent, the PDP candidate, Mladen Ivanić. Yet the process was overshadowed by accusati-ons of election fraud and vote manipulation, due to the high number of invalid ballots (more than 10%).2

The run-off for the Bosniak Member of the Presidency was won by the SDA candidate, Bakir Izetbegović, who defeated the previous member and Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu (Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina) candidate, Haris Silajdžić. Meanw-hile, Željko Komšić, the SDP candidate, was elected as the Croat Member. His victory was challenged, however, by some repre-sentatives of the Croat parties, who argued that the victory was illegitimate as he was not elected exclusively by Croat voters.

In terms of the Federation parliament, victory was claimed by the SDP, with some 25% of votes, followed by the SDA with 20%, the newly established Fahrudin Radončić’s Savez za bolju budućnost (Alliance for a better future) with some 12 %, and the HDZ BiH with about 11 %. Stranka za BiH (Party for BiH) yielded rather poor results with about 8% of the votes, followed by Coalition of Croatian parties, the HDZ 1990 and the HSP (Croatian Party of Rights) with around 5 %. In addition to the parliamentary victory, the SDP claimed victory in five cantonal assemblies - in some of these, for the first time in the post-war history of BiH - while the HDZ BiH won the largest number of votes in the other five cantons. Finally, the SDP and the SNSD have each won 8 mandates in the Parliamentary Assembly of BiH, thus also confirming their status as the strongest parties at the state level. They were followed by the SDA who won 7 mandates, the SDS with 4 and the HDZ with 3.

At the time of writing (December 2010), the new governments in BiH have not yet been established, with the exception of the government in the RS, although the establishment of governments in some of the Cantons of the FBiH is expected shortly and is likely to have occurred by the time of publication. In the RS, the situation has been reasonably straightforward. The Na-tional Assembly has elected a new government and it is simply awaiting confirmation from the RS Council of People in order to become fully operational. The Government of the RS is headed by Aleksandar Džombić, the previous Minister of Finance. In the FBiH, the situation was more complicated. After the elections, the SDP held discussions with potential coalition partners. Their platform was subsequently accepted by the SDA, the HSP and Narodna stranka radom za boljitak (People’s Party - Work for Betterment) which together form the parliamentary majority. The new president of the FBiH is the HSP representative Živko Budimir.At the state level, due to the opposing views of the SNSD and the HDZ BiH on the one hand and SDP on the other, it is difficult to predict when a state government will be established since it is difficult to how so many opposing views can be merged into a single, functioning coalition.

Shortly after the election, the European Union adopted a decision to abolish the visa regime for the citizens of BiH and Alba-nia, the two remaining countries from South Eastern Europe from whom citizens were required to attain visas to travel in the Schengen zone. In addition to the general elections, this was certainly the most important political development in 2010. The decision resulted from BiH’s fulfilment of a series of conditions which were set quite some time ago. The fulfilment of these conditions, without their having been politicised, is reason to think that agreement and compromise are possible if there is political will.

2 Final election results are available at http://www.izbori.ba/Finalni2010/Finalni/PredsjednistvoBiH/Default.aspx

the most significant

development in

the political scene

was the increasing

alignment between

advocates of a third

(croat majority)

entity and political

forces in the rS with

similar views, in this

case the SNSd.

16


16


1.3 More optimism among citizens

According to the results of the November poll, BiH citizens were more optimistic in 2010, in comparison to previous years, in terms of their perception of the political direction of the country. During this reporting period, 38 % of the sample believe that the situation in the country is improving - a jump of 21% in comparison to the previous year. While the number of those who believe the political situation is deteriorating has dropped (to about 23%), it still remains high at 52%. It is interesting to note that the level of optimism of respondents from rural areas is significantly higher than that among urban residents.

Differences in levels of optimism were also recorded in the two entities and in Brčko District. Those in Brčko District were the most optimistic, 70% of whom are of the opinion that the situation in the state is improving. This does, however, represent a slight (12%) decrease compared with the previous reporting period. They are followed by the respondents from FBiH, 49% of whom think that the situation in BiH is deteriorating, while the most pessimistic are the respondents from RS, 60% of which believe that the situation in BiH is moving in a negative direction.

Such growth in levels of optimism with regard to BiH’s future was not accompanied, however, with any significant chan-ge in terms of the desire to leave the country and live elsewhere. In responses to that question, 47 % of respondents answered that, if the opportunity arose, they would leave BiH (a modest increase of about 3 % in comparison to the previous reporting period), with a somewhat higher number of male respondents desiring to leave (50%) compared to the number of female respondents (45%). Differences were also noted with regard to the urban/rural sample, with a larger number of respondents from urban areas wishing to leave BiH (51%) than those from rural areas (45%).

Graph 1.2. In your opinion, in which direction is BiH heading?

Nov 08

Perception that BiH is heading in a positive direction

% o

f ent

ire s

ampl

e

Nov 09 Nov 10

63%

75%

52%

0102030405060708090

100

1.4 Confidence in the government and the OHR

In 2010, one of the rare indicators of successful work by the state institutions was, as already mentioned, the fulfilment of the requirements for the EU visa regime liberalization, despite significant delays compared to most of the other co-untries in the region. From 2009, the citizens of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia no longer required visas to travel to the Schengen countries, yet those in BiH and Albania did. In November 2010, the European Commission decided that the remaining requirements had been met by both BiH and Albanian governments and that liberalisation could occur. This is a very important step in terms of BiH’s accession goals and not surprisingly it appears to have had an effect on the responses of respondents to the November poll.

At the same time, 2010 was a significant landmark in that it represented the fifteenth anniversary of the Dayton Peace Agreement. This further highlighted the general consensus on the need for constitutional changes since the BiH con-stitution is part of Dayton. Yet it also highlighted the differing views on the direction those changes should take, upon which there isn’t even minimal consensus. The views of the political elites on this issue are so far apart, it raises the question of whether any future agreement is even possible.

17


17


In terms of the International Community’s role in BiH there was no significant change in 2010. Although there is a broad consensus on the need to transform the Office of the High Representative (OHR) into the Office of the Special Representative for BiH, and there are a number of different plans for this transformation, this transformation is yet to take place. Indeed, there appears to be a certain ‘fatigue’ among the international community when it comes to the lack of progress in BiH in the past few years. Nevertheless, the visit of the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, indicated a renewal of interest. The visit served as the first opportunity to gather the old and the new political leaders in a single place and to show, after a bitter and negative electoral campaign that they can work together.

In November 2010, the European Commission issued its annual Progress Report for BiH. The findings of this report depicted a “gloomy picture”.3 According to the EC the state achieved little progress in particular in relation to state pro-perty issues. In addition the EC stated that there is no sufficient internal consensus on major EU-related reform issues. When it comes to the fulfilment of the political criteria for the accession of BiH into the EU, the document stated that “only limited progress has been made by Bosnia and Herzegovina on improving the functionality and efficiency of the State-level government structures”.4

The overall level of support among respondents for the OHR remained exactly the same as in 2009 – 52%, with more support from women than men. There were differences between the respondents from the two entities and Brčko District. The highest level of approval, as in 2009, came from respondents in Brčko District (77%), although there was a slight decrease of support there (11%) compared previously. The level of confidence among respondents from the two entities did not change significantly; in 2010 support in the FBiH was at 59%, and at 39% in the RS.

3 Report available at http://www.delbih.ec.europa.eu/files/docs/2010progress1.pdf

4 Izvještaj o napretku Bosne i Hercegovine u 2010. godini, Brussels, November 9, 2010, SEC (2010) 1331, p. 11, http://www.delbih.ec.europa.eu/files/docs/2010progress1.pdf

Nov 09. Nov 10.

Graph 1.3 Approval of government institutions

Presidency Parliament of BiH

Council of Ministers

Level of support for the work of government institutions in BiH

Parliament of FBiH

Government of FBiH

Government of RS

Municipal authorities

Cantonal authorities in

FBiH

National Assembly RS

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

32.5

55.3

31.3

51.5

32.9

50.0

28.7

47.0

29.5

46.4

32.442.0

33.743.1 39.1

59.0

19.3

48.8

according to the Ec

the state achieved

little progress in

particular in relation

to state property

issues.

18


18


1.5. Summary

The end of 2010 was marked by two significant events – a general election and the long awaited EU visa liberalization. Both of these events had been expected with great anticipation. For many, the elections held the promise of a new direction away from several years of institutional and political stagnation, by the re-grouping of the political forces in power. However, major changes did not occur.

On the political stage of the RS, the balance of political powers remained almost identical to the period prior to the election. At the time of writing, the governments at the state level and in the FBiH have not yet been established. Al-though this is not an entirely unusual phenomenon in BiH politics, the establishment of coalitions at these two levels could be even more complicated than in past years. In addition to the competing views of the parties which took the largest share of the vote, with regard to the most important issues, a coalition formed of these parties will face major challenges, not only on the constitutional issue but in terms of meeting the requirements for the EU integration proce-ss, as well as an accumulation of economic problems.

The removal of the need for BiH citizens to hold visas for travel to the EU, however, ended the year on a positive note and provided hope that political compromises and moments of progress are possible and can result in improvements in the daily lives of citizens, particularly when these issues are separated from the often heated political sphere and returned to the more mundane every-day responsibility of a particular institution.

Otherwise, in terms of institutional effectiveness, however, 2010 did not bring any significant changes in BiH. As stated in the European Commission’s yearly report, progress in terms of improving the functionality of the State-level struc-tures was only limited. And as in previous years, the weak functioning of state institutions was mainly caused by the ongoing political crisis.

2. the economic situation

20

t H E E co No m i c S i t ua t i o N


the economic situation Adnan Efendić

2.1 Index of economic stability increases

The Economic Stability Index showed slight recovery in November 2010. It is noteworthy that during the last three waves of polling, from October 2008 until November 2009, the chain index has seen a downward trend. The last eco-nomic crisis actually developed in the last half of 2008 and probably had the strongest negative impact during 2009. Therefore, it seems that the indices have, to a significant degree, reflected the economic realities, including providing an indication of the economic recovery, both worldwide and in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

Graph 2.1: The Economic Stability Index

Economic Stability Index for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Survey wave

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Feb.05

Jun.05

Sep.05

Nov.05

Apr.06

Jun.06

Sep.06

Nov.06

Apr.07

Sep.07

Nov.07

Mar.08

Jun.08

Okt.08

Nov.08

Nov.09

Nov.10

Chain index 96 100 94 98 107 100 102 102 102 94 91 107 102 102 100 98 100

Composite index 48 48 45 44 47 47 48 49 50 47 43 46 47 48 48 47 47

2.2 Slight recovery recorded in industrial production

While in previous years industrial production has regularly recorded significant rates of increased production, both with regard to the economy of BiH as a whole and at the entity level, the impact of the global economic crisis during 2009 did not pass BiH industry by. Consequently, industrial production in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) in 2009 was down by some 12% compared to the previous year, whereas industrial production continued to grow in Republika Srpska (RS) where it rose 19 %.5 Gross Domestic Product was down 3%6, in 2009, the first such down-

5 Source: Federal Statistics Office Mjesečni statistički pregled FBiH No. 1, Year XIV, January 2010. Republic Statistics Office of RS Mjesečno saopštenje – indeksi industrijske proizvodnje No. 8/10, January 2010.

6 Source: Central Bank of BiH, Godišnji izvještaj 2009, Central Bank of BiH, 2010, Sarajevo, p. 17.

the Economic

Stability index

showed slight

recovery in

November 2010.

21



turn in recent years and a clear indicator of the negative effects of the global crisis. If we disregard other factors in our assessment, total industrial production in the RS in 2009 registered less negative effects of the global crisis. This prima-rily comes as a result of increased production of coke and petroleum derivatives there during the past year.

Table 2.1 Index of the volume of industrial production in BiH

ENTITYI-XI 2009

I-XI 2008

Ostvareni rezultat tokom 2010. godine

XI 2010

0 2009

I-XI 2010

I-XI 2009Best performing sector Worst performing sector

FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND

HERZEGOVINA88.2 109.7 103.4

Production of coke, petroleum derivatives

and nuclear fuel

Production of motor vehicles, trailers and

semitrailers

REPUBLIKA SRPSKA 118.8 118.9 104.1 RecyclingProduction of radio, TV

and communication equipment

Source: Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeksi industrijske proizvodnje - novembar 2010, Year III, No. 9. 11, Sarajevo, December, 2010; Republic Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeksi industrijske proizvodnje, No. 234/10: December 2010.

The first signs of recovery from the crisis have now appeared. In the FBiH, during 11 months in 2010, industrial produc-tion rose by 3.4% compared to the same period the previous year. Despite the fact that this is just a slight increase, it represents a significant turn considering the fall of 10% recorded for the same period the previous year. If we look at the major sectors, the highest growth was recorded in the processing industry (7.5% on the average), while the big-gest fall occurred in mining and quarries (5%). More precisely, the highest indices were recorded in the sector of coke, petroleum derivatives and nuclear fuel production, followed by the sector of recycling and furniture production.7 The sector recording the biggest fall was that which produces motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers: this index showed a fall of 44% compared to the same period from the previous year. Considering this sector saw a fall in 2009, it is two years running now that a drop in automobile industry-related production has occurred in that entity.

During 2010, the average industrial production index in the RS rose by 4% in comparison to the same period in 2009. The largest relative growth was recorded in recycling, production of medical, precise and optical instruments and in the production of other machinery and devices.8 The biggest relative fall was recorded in the production of radio, TV and communications equipment, yarn and fabric production and the extraction of different types of solid ore. Radio, TV and communications equipment production also recorded a significant fall during the previous year which is rather worrying for this sector, although the value of this index in 2010 was only 0.7% compared to the previous year. Despite the overall positive industrial growth in the RS it showed quite a reduction compared to the previous year, suggesting that industrial growth was rather slow during 2010.

Finally, estimates for the RS stating that GDP has risen by 2% in comparison to the same period for the previous year (calculated based on production) indicate the first possible signs of GDP growth in BiH. In the second quarter the level of growth was around 1%, while a slight fall of 0.2% was recorded during the first quarter.9 Positive growth can also be expected at the level of BiH by the end of the year, which is already visible in the estimates provided by certain insti-tutions.10

7 Index value according to the order stated: 159.4, 152.4 and 143.5. Source: Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeksi industrijske proizvodnje – novembar 2010, Year III, No. 9.11, December 2010.

8 Index value according to the order stated: 175.4, 169.8 and 135.9. Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeksi industrijske proizvodnje, No. 234/10, December 2010.

9 Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Tromjesečno saopštenje - tromjesečni bruto domaći proizvod, No. 230/10, December 2010.

10 The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development forecasts growth in BiH of 0.8%. Source: <www.ebrd.com>, December 2010.

22



2.3 Increased unemployment remains a major macroeconomic problem

For the past fifteen years the high rate of unemployment in BiH has represented one of the country’s greatest macro-economic problems. Despite the fact that a significant decrease in the number of unemployed persons in BiH was re-corded in 2008, in the two subsequent years we again saw an increase. Thus the number of unemployed reached more than half a million; when compared to 2008 the recorded number of unemployed increased by almost eight percent. In the context of the economy, this indicates poor results.

Although it may be an oversimplification to say that the global crisis has been the major cause of rising unemployment, it is still necessary to refer to this negative economic turn that struck the whole world, including, naturally, BiH. Looking at what happened in other countries in terms of unemployment figures results in similar conclusions. For example, in 2008-2010 unemployment in the United States rose from 5.8 to 9.4 %, in France from 7.9 to 10.0%, in Spain from 11.3 to 19.4% and so on.11 Germany was one of the more developed economies that did not face a significant relative increase in unemployment during the crisis. In other words, increased unemployment is one of the phenomena that accompa-nies periods of recession and crisis and this also occurred in BiH.

If we look at the entity level for the years covered there is a rise in the number of unemployed in both entities, with the exception of 2010 where there is a slight decrease in the number of unemployed in the RS. The trend continued in the FBiH of growth in the number of unemployed. An interesting turn can be noted during 2010 in terms of the gender division in the unemployed population. While in January 2010 there were slightly more men recorded as unemployed, by September 2010 the number of unemployed women had increased while the number of unemployed men had decreased. Thus, in September we observe more unemployed women than men: 50.3% of women and 49.7% of men.

The increase in the number of unemployed university graduates should also be noted; this number rose from 3.5% in January 2010 to 3.9% in September 2010. This indicates that the share of university graduates within the overall struc-ture of the unemployed increased slightly. We can presume that the major reason for such a trend is the inability of the economy to create new jobs for persons holding such qualifications, of those who graduated during the year.

11 Source: World Development Indicators 2010, World Bank, December 2010, web: <www.worldbank.org>.

Table 2.2. Unemployment in BiH

Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007. 2008. 2009. January 2010 September 2010

Total Unemployment in BiH 520,432 480,313 502,192 516,185 517,004

Unemployed Women in BiH 257,507 260,255

Unemployed Men in BiH 258,678 256,749

Unemployed university graduates in BiH

18,004 20,055

Unemployed female university graduates in BiH

11,208 12,822

Unemployed male university graduates in BiH

6,796 7,233

Federation of BiH 370,459 345,381 347,146 357,664 363,146

Republika Srpska 146,180 136,108 134,798 147,816 142,625

Source: Data for BiH: Statistics Agency of BiH, Saopštenje - registrirana nezaposlenost u septembru 2010. No. 9, Year IV, November 2010. FBiH: Federal Statistics Office, Mjesečni statistički pregled, No. 11, Year XIV, December 2010; RS: Employment Bureau of Republika Srpska, <www.zzrs.org>, December 2010. Please note: data presented by years refers to each January.

an interesting turn

can be noted during

2010 in terms of

the gender division

in the unemployed

population.

23



2.4 Retail prices and foreign currency reserves up slightly

I dok smo posljednjih Whilst there has been a (slight) growth in retail prices in BiH over recent years, particularly fo-llowing the introduction of VAT in 2006, it would seem that 2009 brought a structural change. Looking at the average retail price trend in 2009 in comparison to 2008 there was an average deflation of 0.4%.12 The most significant fall in prices was observed in the following sectors: transportation (9.9 %), clothing and footwear (3.9 %), while the highest increase in prices was recorded in alcoholic beverages and tobacco (9.8 %) and restaurants and hotels (4.9%). In any event, such a slight deflation, a rather uncommon phenomenon in the economy, can primarily be linked to a decrease in consumption during the crisis that caused a short-term and slight decrease in prices. Subsequently, in 2010 we saw a slight increase in prices in comparison to the previous year. From an individual perspective this may not seem like a positive shift, but if we look at it in the macroeconomic context, it can be perceived as one of the potential signs of initial recovery from crisis.

An increase in retail prices of about 2% can be expected in 2010. This growth may be somewhat higher in the RS in comparison to the FBiH. If we look at the structure of the sectors that saw the highest increase in the Retail Price Index in both entities, these were primarily the alcoholic beverages and tobacco (more than 20%) and transportation (about 7%) sectors. To be more precise, the average increase in prices of about 30% in the first sector was brought about by an increase in the price of tobacco, while an average increase of about 10% was recorded in the transportation sector. In the RS there was a significant increase in the price of communications and the prices of telephone and fax services (about 9 %).13

A fall in retail prices of up to 5% for clothing and footwear and about 1% for food and non-alcoholic beverages was also recorded in both entities.14

Although the annual growth in retail prices, expressed in percentages, was minimal the overall cumulative growth of prices (inflation upon inflation) in the country reached almost 20% (see Table 2.3).

In terms of the expectations of respondents over retail prices, this goes hand in hand with the actual economic trends in BiH. As the recession was becoming more of a reality, the expectations of the population followed a “logical” course, with fewer and fewer expecting further increases in prices. During 2010 the number of those expecting prices to start to grow again increased, which again is in line with the trends observed in this index.

12 Source: Statistics Agency of BiH, Indeks potrošačkih cijena u BiH 2008-2009, October 2010, Sarajevo.

13 Source: Data for the FBiH - Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena – novembar 2010, Year III, number 7.1.11, December 2010; Data for RS - Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena, No. 231/10, December 2010.

14 Source: Data for the FBiH - Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena – novembar 2010, Year III, number 7.1.11, December 2010; Data for RS - Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena, No. 231/10, December 2010.

Table 2.3. Retail Price Index in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Retail Price IndexXI 2010

0 2005

XI 2010

XI 2009

I-XI 2010

I-XI 2009

Retail Price Index in BiH 118.7 102.3 102.0

Retail Price Index in the FBiH 118.8 102.3 101.6

Retail Price Index in RS 118.7 102.4 102.4

Sources: Data for BiH - Statistics Agency of BiH, Sopštenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena u BiH u novembru 2010, Year IV, No. December 11, 2010. Data for the FBiH: Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena u FBiH – novembar 2010, Year III, No. 7.1.11., December 2010. Data for RS: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena, No. 231/10, December 2010.

24



Lastly, a very important monetary indicator that we have consistently monitored is the total gross foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CBBiH). In recent years the reserve has seen steady growth at the annual level, with a total value reaching 6.7 billion BAM in December 2007.

However, a reduction in the foreign currency reserves was recorded during 2008 and in the final month of the year it was some 400 million BAM lower than it had been at the end of 2007.15

With regard to the “period of crisis”, in 2009 we noted a modest reduction in the foreign currency reserves during the first six months, practically from month to month, but also that their level began to rise modestly in July 2009 and by the end of 2009 they were at about 6 billion BAM. No further significant progress was seen in 2010; however, we have to conclude that a modest upward trend was seen during the first four months, which is a positive signal.

16

15 Public opinion polls conducted for this project by Prism Research, survey results for 2006-2010.

16 Source: Central Bank of BiH, <www.cbbh.gov.ba>, December, 2009.

Graph 2.3. CBBiH foreign currency reserves16

CBBiH foreign currency reserves (BAM mill)

XII2003

XII2004

XII2005

XII2006

XII2007

XII2008

XXIII2009

I2010

II III IV V VI VII VIII IX2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

4.500

5.000

5.500

6.000

6.500

7.000

No further significant

progress was seen in

2010; however, we

have to conclude that

a modest upward

trend was seen

during the first four

months, which is a

positive signal.

Graph 2.2. Forecasts for retail price trends in BiH 2006-201015

Sep

2006

Dec

2006

April

2007

Sep

2007

Nov

2007

Mar

2008

June

2008

Sep

‘08

Nov

‘08

Nov

‘09

Nov

‘10

Expectations of further increases in prices in BiH (% of total answers)

%

54.7

62.8

60.2

87.6 87.583.8

81.1

71.874.9

63.0

77.6

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

25



In any event, it is not difficult to surmise the reason for the reduction recorded during and at the end of 2008. The global financial crisis indirectly resulted in the withdrawal of deposits from the banking system and this caused the foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank of BiH to be reduced. However, the outflow of foreign currency reserves was ef-fectively stopped after the second half of 2009 and it can be expected that by the end of 2010 the reserves will remain at a level similar to that prior to the economic crisis. In truth, one of the reasons why a further decrease was halted was the drawing upon the second and third tranche of BiH’s stand-by arrangement with the International Monetary Fund, which was signed at the end of March 2010 and amounted to around 140 million Euros.17

2.5 Improvement in the balance of foreign trade

In recent years BiH’s balance of trade has been marked by negative trends, with a low import-export ratio on the one hand and the steady growth of the deficit on the other. During 2008 the country generated a deficit in foreign trade of more than 9.5 billion BAM, with an import-export ratio of 41%.18 In contrast to these trends in foreign trade from earlier years there was a major change in the movement of the foreign trade indicator during a nine month period in 2009-2010; this was primarily due to a reduction in the volume of trade, imports, exports and finally due to the overall deficit.

The total volume of BiH’s trade during the first nine months of 2010 was 17 billion BAM, of which 11 billion BAM was for im-ports and about 6 billion BAM for exports. The resulting ratio of imports to exports produced a foreign trade deficit worth 5.3 billion BAM; the coverage of imports by exports was 52% (see Table 3.7). By comparing these indicators to those for the same period the previous year the volume of trade was up by some 2 billion BAM, with exports up somewhat more (28%) than imports (9%). Such changes within the structure of trade exchange resulted in an increase of coverage of imports by exports from 45 % for the first 10 months of 2009 to 52% for the same period in 2010.

While this modest growth in the import/export ratio suggests progress in terms of trade, all of these changes may certainly be attributed to tendencies linked to the economic crisis and reduced purchasing power, both on the part of consumers within BiH and in other markets. This primarily refers to 2009, the year that can be marked as the one in which the strongest impact of the crisis was felt. 2010 can be seen as a year of progress in terms of foreign trade exchange, since the volume of trade increased. However, it is still below the “pre-crisis” volume of exchange, which indicates an increase in spending or the weakening of the effects of the crisis. The higher relative growth in exports compared to imports and the higher level of coverage of imports by exports represents progress worth mentioning.

17 Source: Central Bank of BiH, <www.cbbh.gov.ba>, December, 2009.

18 Source: Central Bank of BiH, Bilten 2, Central Bank of BiH, 2010, Sarajevo, p. 46.

Table 2.4. The balance of foreign trade between BiH and abroad (millions of BAM) for the period I-X for 2008-2010

I - X 2008 I – X 2009 I – X 2010Change in %

compared to 2009

Export 5,849 4,649 5,822 + 28 %

Import 13,598 9,984 11,124 + 9 %

Volume 19,447 14,633 16,946 + 16 %

Balance - 7,749 - 5,335 - 5,302 + 1 %

Import-Export ratio in %

43 % 45 % 52 % + 5 %

Source: Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH, Pregled i analiza ostvarene razmjene za BiH for the period 01 to 10 2008/09, November 2009. Statistics Agency of BiH, Saopštenje - statistika robne razmjene sa inostranstvom, Year VI, No. 10, November 2010.

26



BiH’s most important foreign trade partners have for some time been, in descending order, Croatia, Germany, Serbia, Italy and Slovenia. The country with which BiH has the largest trade deficit is Croatia: the deficit for the period in question in 2010 was 800 million BAM; this represents a drop in comparison to the same period in 2009. BiH has the greatest volume of trade with the European Union, accounting for about half of all foreign trade.19

A breakdown of BiH’s foreign trade by product group shows that the biggest growth in exports occurred in agriculture, hunting and forestry i.e., in the sector of agriculture (91% growth). The biggest growth in imports, on the other hand, in comparison to 2009 was in production and supply of electric energy, gas and water (value of index – 217.9). 20

2.6 Public opinion on economic situation slightly improved

The results of the opinion poll in 2009 appear to be the worst assessment of the economic situation in the country for some time, which corresponds with the actual economic trend in both BiH and worldwide. At that time, some 46% of the sample expressed the view that the situation in the economy had worsened, while the percentage describing it as having improved was the lowest to date (5%).

The results from the November 2010 survey show an improvement in public opinion of the economic situation; an assessment by respondents that the economic situation during 2010 was somewhat better than the previous year. As we saw in the previous sections, official statistics have also shown slight signals of recovery in the economy, at least with regard to some of the more significant economic indicators.

In any event, only 8% of respondents thought that the situation had improved, about one-third of respondents were of the opinion that the economic situation had deteriorated, while more than half described the situation as unchanged. Such answers cannot be interpreted as an indication of an improved situation, although there is slight progress in com-parison to the situation in 2009. Despite the fact that the answers did not differ significantly between men and women, the results do suggest a bit more optimism amongst women when compared to men within the sample.

19 Source: Statistics Agency of BiH, Saopštenje – statistika vanjske trgovine, Year IV, No. 12, January 2009.

20 Source: Statistics Agency of BiH, Saopštenje - statistika robne razmjene sa inostranstvom, Year VI, Number 10, November 2010.

WORSE SAME BETTER

Graph 2.4. Public opinion of the economy

Juni ‘08 Sep ‘08 Nov. ‘08 Nov. ‘09 Nov ‘10

Opinion of the economic conditions in the previous year

50.0

60.0

%

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

14.0

33.7

51.5

15.5

27.0

57.1

10.8

34.5

53.8

5.4

45.947.0

8.1

35.1

56.4

Some 46% of the

sample expressed

the view that the

situation in the

economy had

worsened, while

the percentage

describing it as

having improved was

the lowest to date

(5%).

27



If we disaggregate the answers according to the entities then the most negative answers come from the RS. 40% of the sample there rated the economic situation as having become worse, while 53% described the situation as unchanged. In 2009 the conclusion was the opposite. The most positive answers to this question were recorded among the partici-pants from the FBiH, whereas earlier such responses came from Brčko District.

When it comes to respondents’ opinions of the situation in the coming year it is very difficult to note any significant signs of optimism. In the 2010 poll, almost two-thirds of respondents were of the opinion that the situation will not change, a quarter expected the situation to become worse, with only 14% registering optimism. The results are quite similar to those from the previous year.

Table 2.5. Public opinion on the assessment of economic conditions during the past year, by entity


FBiH RS BD FBiH RS BD

% % % % % %

BETTER 4.7 5.4 20.2 10.0 5.6 5.0

SAME 44.8 50.6 43.7 58.5 53.2 57.6

WORSE 47.8 43.7 36.1 31.5 40.2 36.7

NO ANSWER 2.7 0.3 - - 1.0 0.7

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for this project, Prism Research, November 2010

BETTER SAME WORSE

Graph 2.5. Public opinion of future economic conditions

Sep ‘08 Nov. ‘08 Nov. ‘09 Nov ‘10

Perception of the economic conditions in the coming year

June ‘08

50.0

60.0

70.0

%

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

22.517.2

56.1

16.1 17.2

62.0

24.5

15.0

55.4

29.1

15.6

51.3

26.1

14.4

58.0

The most common response from the sample during all of the surveys conducted in 2008 as well as the survey of No-vember 2009 was that the economic situation in the subsequent year would not change significantly. Yet, whilst in earlier surveys the number predicting deterioration was normally insignificantly larger than those predicting an improvement in the economic situation, in the last two surveys (2009 and 2010) twice as many respondents gave pessimistic estimates as those that were optimistic. Although there were no significant deviations in the obtained results after disaggregating the data according to gender; however, men provided a somewhat more optimistic prognosis than women. A majority of women (66 %) were of the opinion that the economic situation over the forthcoming year would remain the same.

almost two-thirds

of respondents

were of the opinion

that the situation

will not change, a

quarter expected the

situation to become

worse, with only

14% registering

optimism. the

results are quite

similar to those from

the previous year.

28



2.7 Summary

During the first eleven months in 2010, growth in industrial production and the first signs of recovery were recorded following weaker results in 2009, especially in the FBiH. More specifically, an increase of about 3% was seen in the FBiH, with the highest growth in the processing industry. The growth of the physical volume of industry in the RS was recor-ded at around 4% where the highest growth was in the recycling sector.

Unemployment continues to be a major problem in BiH and 2010 saw a further weakening of the employment situa-tion. The number of unemployed surpassed half a million and has been growing for the last two years. The number of unemployed women within the structure of the unemployed population was slightly higher, while data disaggregated according to qualifications showed that the lowest percentage of unemployed was recorded amongst persons with high qualifications, although, in 2010, this number also grew.

Retail prices saw a slight growth during the first eleven months of 2010, which suggested that inflation of about 2% could be expected at the end of the year. It should be underlined that BiH recorded a deflation of around 0.4% during 2009. Looking at the level of foreign currency reserves at the Central Bank of BiH there were no significant oscillations during 2010, with the exception of a slight growth in the level of reserves in the second half of the year, which can be seen as a positive signal.

In terms of public opinion on the economic situation during the previous year, a majority of respondents to the Novem-ber survey believe that the situation was the same as the previous year and they did not expect any significant changes to occur in the following year. The results were quite similar to those previously, although there was a slightly higher level of optimism compared to 2009.

Lastly there is the question of how to evaluate the overall economic situation in 2010 and future prospects. Official in-dicators as well as the public opinion poll suggest a slight economic upturn, which is definitely noteworthy as it reflects the broader effects of the global economic crisis, both worldwide and in BiH. No significant expansionary tendencies were identified - a situation recorded generally worldwide - however, the fact that the negative trends stopped is im-portant. The only indicator analysed in this report that is an exception is the level of unemployment, which suggests that it will require far more attention in the future.

29



the business environment

3.

30

t H E B u S i N E S S E N v i ro N m E N t


the business environment Adnan Efendić

3.1 Economic situation worsens

The results of our surveys on the economic situation in BiH during 2008 were extremely poor, especially during the last poll conducted in November 2010. The results recorded in a survey conducted in November 2009 were far better, despite the fact that the majority of the official statistical indicators reflected the negative effects that the crisis had had on the country’s economy. The past year recorded a fall in GDP, while unemployment grew even more. Nevertheless the business sector demonstrated a far higher level of optimism, suggests a positive momentum created upon exit from the crisis.

When it comes to the November 2010 results the majority of the sample (58% to be precise) thought that the economic situation in the country was worse than the year before. About one-third of respondents thought that the economic si-tuation had stayed the same when compared to the past year, while only 8% of respondents thought that the situation had actually improved and that economic progress had been achieved. If we look at the results of previous polls such a small number of respondents showing optimism is rare. The exception was the far more pessimistic results recorded at the end of 2008, during which fear of the possible negative effects of the forthcoming crisis was prevalent.

BOLJA ISTA LOŠIJA

Graph 3.1. Expectations of the future economic situation

Comparison of the economic situation 2010 and 2009

APRIL

2007

SEPT.

2007

DEC.

2007

MARCH

2008

AUG

2008

SEPT

2008

DEC

2008

NOV

2009

NOV

2010

50

60

70

80

% 40

30

20

10

0

Looking at the expectations of entrepreneurs for the next half-year, the majority of respondents believe that the eco-nomic situation in the country will not change significantly. However, of particular concern, was the high percentage (33%) of respondents who believe that the economic situation in the country would get worse. Only 15 of the respon-dents from the sample were optimistic. If we disaggregate the responses obtained according to the entities, there were far more pessimistic forecasts coming from entrepreneurs in the RS than the average for BiH and the FBiH. Thus, 44 % of respondents from this entity expected the economic situation to worsen, while only 4% within the sample were optimists. On the other hand, 29% of respondents in the FBiH expected the economic situation to worsen over the fort-hcoming half-year, while 17% of them shared the opinion that certain positive shifts could also be expected. More than 50% of the sample at the level of BiH and at the entity level shared the opinion that the economic situation during the first half of 2011 would remain the same as it had been in 2010. Taking into consideration the rather poor progress of the economy during the previous year, such a result can be interpreted as a belief that such poor results will continue.

Looking at the

expectations of

entrepreneurs for

the next half-year,

the majority of

respondents believe

that the economic

situation in the

country will not

change significantly.

31



3.2 Company capacities under-utilised while the level of debt rises

One of the important indicators of the economic sector in BiH, otherwise unavailable through official statistics, is an assessment of the utilisation of the installed capacities. This indicator provides significant information on the degree to which companies are currently using their potential which can indirectly be interpreted as an approximation of the use of the overall capacities within the country’s economy. Results obtained in the November poll show that 27% of com-panies have unutilised capacities; this means that they have the capacity to produce more, but due to the state of the market these potentials are not being used. Naturally the unutilised potential can be directly linked and is reflected in the labour market, indicating the sub-optimal employment (underemployment) of the labour force, assuming that the insufficient utilisation of corporate capacities indicates the underemployment of the labour force. However, it is worth noting that the majority of business representatives (57%) responded that they were fully utilising their capacities.

If we look at responses on the utilisation of capacity at the entity level the results correspond to those described in the previous section. A far higher percentage of companies (42%) in the RS shared the opinion that they were not fully uti-lising their installed capacities, when compared to those in the FBiH (23%).

Responses in the entities were also consistent with estimates of companies’ financial operations and forecasts for the forthcoming half-year. Looking at the previous year, 39% of companies stated that their company had made progress in terms of their financial operations, 45% of them stated that their financial operations had remained at the same level as in the previous year, while 17% of them stated that their financial operations had worsened. It seems as though, in 2009, expectations of a far better situation in the forthcoming period were unrealistic (which could be interpreted as the expectations of expansion in a period of crisis). According to the November 2009 poll, a high percentage (73%) of respondents expected the financial status of their companies to improve, which included respondents from both enti-ties. It is now obvious that their optimism was unrealistic.

The estimates are now far steadier, considering that 42% of companies within the sample shared the opinion that the results of their operations are likely to be better in the forthcoming six-month period. Looking at estimates at the entity level, 31% of companies from the RS believe their financial situation may worsen in the forthcoming period, while the same opinion is shared by 18% of respondents from the FBiH. To put it simply, there is a higher level of concern among business people in the RS.

Insufficient utilisation of capacities accompanied by the worsening of companies’ financial operations could directly and or indirectly lead to an increase in the level of corporate debt as a means of overcoming problems related to busine-ss operations. The business sector survey also offers insights into this issue. If we look at Table 3.1 we can see that almost half of the companies within the sample increased their debt in comparison to the same period last year. Taking into account the fact that a high level of respondents (67%) from November 2009 also stated that their companies had incre-ased their debt liabilities, we can note that for two years in a row we have seen a significant increase in company debt.

Table 3.1. Compared to the same period last year, how would you describe your company’s level of debt?

Higher (%) Same (%) Lower (%)

XII

2008

XI

2009

XI'

10

XII

2008

XI

2009

XI'

10

XII

2008

XI

2009

XI'

10

BiH 37 67 48 35 30.6 38 28 2 14

FBIH 35 68 45 38 29.3 41 27 2 14

RS 42 62 58 33 37.5 31 25 12

Source: The Business Environment Survey conducted for the UNDP Early Warning System in BiH Project by PRISM Research, Business to Business Survey – top 150, November 2010

insufficient

utilisation

of capacities

accompanied by

the worsening of

companies’ financial

operations could

directly and or

indirectly lead to an

increase in the level

of corporate debt as a

means of overcoming

problems related to

business operations.

32



A sharp increase in the level of debt over the past two years, with quite similar results in both entities, suggests that in how entrepreneurs attempted to alleviate the effects of the global economic crisis. The effect of the economic crisis during the past year most certainly resulted in a decrease in production for both national and international markets, as we have seen in the economic section of this report; this partially resulted in companies seeking to find their way out of the crisis by incre-ased borrowing. Naturally, the increase in debt is caused partially by increased investments, but such a swift growth of in-debtedness was certainly not a consequence of a significant increase in investment during a period of reduced production and consumption, especially if we take into account the answers regarding the insufficient utilisation of existing capacities.

Finally, the responses from the respondents concerning their overall business operations show that despite the difficulties identified so far (underutilised capacities, dissatisfaction with financial results, increased debt) the majority of companies (77%) reported that they had made a profit.

Business operations of companies in BiH

Graph 3.2. Business operations of companies in BiH

APR

IL 2

007

SEPT

. 200

7

DEC

. 200

7

MA

RCH

200

8

AU

GU

ST 2

008

SEPT

. 200

8

DEC

. 200

8

NO

V. 2

009

NO

V. 2

010

90

%

8070605040302010

0

79

18

79

16

77

20

78

18

72

26

63

26

69

31

67

33

67

33

PROFIT LOSS Linear (LOSS)

Naturally, the questionnaire does not show whether profits made by 77% of companies, in absolute and or relative terms, were more or less the same as in previous years. Nevertheless, 23% percent of companies indicated that they had incurred losses in 2010, which is still rather high and of particular concern. It is evident from Graph 3.2 that the linear trend of com-panies making a loss over the past three years has risen.

3.3 Institutional problems hinder business sector development

Responses in regard to how helpful the various levels of government are to the business sector in overcoming obstacles have hardly been encouraging for many polls now, including those from the latest one conducted in November 2010. If we look back, the most positive answers were obtained in the survey conducted in November 2009, when all levels of government were assessed as being more helpful than before (more than half of the sample). Such a change of attitude amongst business people in 2009 was interpreted as an evident government effort to make certain moves in order to alle-viate the consequences of the economic crisis and primarily as a result of the persistent efforts by all levels related to the budget reforms necessary to secure the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Stand-By Arrangement. The November 2010 poll shows that such a percentage dropped significantly and that now some 30% of companies believe that they have support from all levels of government for the improvement of their business operations.

the responses from

the respondents

concerning their

overall business

operations show

that despite the

difficulties identified

so far (underutilised

capacities,

dissatisfaction with

financial results,

increased debt)

the majority of

companies (77%)

reported that they

had made a profit.

33



In addition to the analysis of government efficiency in providing support to entrepreneurs in BiH, for a number of years now we have been monitoring the key obstacles and hurdles to business development in BiH. These indicators are very significant, especially for decision-makers in this country. Table 3.3 offers a list of possible obstacles that BiH companies may face as well as the results obtained by our surveys conducted over the last three years.

Table 3.2. How helpful are the various levels of government to the business sector in dealing with business problems?

Table 3.3. How great an obstacle are the following to the successful conduct of business?

Very helpful Generally helpfulNeither helpful nor unhelpful

Generally unhelpful

Not helpful at all

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

State 3 30 10 5 56 23 26 14 24 27 20 29 13

Entity 2 16 5 11 60 27 20 22 22 26 1 19 28 13

Cantonal 2 8 4 19 53 28 13 38 23 26 1 17 25 12

Municipal 2 13 4 20 44 30 15 42 25 28 1 19 24 10

Source: The Business Environment Survey conducted for the UNDP Early Warning System Project in BiH by PRISM Research, Business to Business Survey – top 150, November 2010

Very Somewhat Not much Not at all

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

Customs procedures 19 26 24 39 50 47 25 23 20 12 1 5

Tax rates 48 9 32 28 48 32 17 41 29 2 2 3

Unfair competition 42 13 29 27 52 33 16 34 25 9 1 7

Corruption 42 13 32 26 45 26 12 39 27 6 3 2

Operations of the judiciary 45 22 30 26 36 29 16 38 28 3 4 4

Political instability 34 19 25 27 42 34 24 36 32 6 3 3

Labour market regulations 28 19 21 31 53 36 21 24 29 14 3 7

Tax administration 19 7 39 38 65 46 29 27 27 9 1 4

Procedures for the issuance of work permits

38 19 31 29 42 32 20 35 27 8 4 7

Environmental regulations 17 17 10 36 49 44 23 32 30 12 2 9

Safety regulations and standards

14 18 16 30 53 32 31 27 34 15 2 9

Lack of qualified personnel 2 13 4 20 44 30 15 42 25 28 1 19

Source: The Business Environment Survey conducted for the UNDP Early Warning System in Project BiH by PRISM Research, Business to Business Survey – top 150, November 2010

34



In most of the surveys carried out over recent years the sample identified high taxation rates, unfair competition, poli-tical instability and the functioning of the judiciary as the main problems facing businesses. In our survey conducted in November 2009 this list changed so that the three most important obstacles to conducting business in BiH (obstacles rated as either “very” or “somewhat” problematic) were customs procedures (76%), labour market regulations (72%) and the Tax Administration (72%).

In the last poll, conducted in November 2010, there was a slight change in the list of the major obstacles that domestic companies face. Overall, the respondents perceived the three biggest obstacles to their operations to be in the fiscal sector: tax administration (85%), customs procedures (71%) and tax rates (64%). The respondents from the FBiH were particularly critical of the tax burden. This does not come as a surprise, considering the higher overall fiscal burden in this entity. It is likely that the transition in the fiscal sector in the FBiH and the introduction of fiscal cash registers into businesses, which will create additional fixed costs for companies, affected these poll results.

Indeed, the many other obstacles listed in Table 3.3 are also rated negatively. 60% of companies stated that they have problems with a lack of qualified staff. The official unemployment rate in the labour market surpasses 40% and the an-swers indicated that 60% of the companies are having difficulty finding qualified labour. This leads us to the conclusion that the high level of unemployment could be, to a great extent, described as “structural unemployment”. This is an economic term that explains high levels of unemployment not only according to the weakness of a certain economy, but also by the mismatch in demand and offer in terms of the labour force. To put it simply, while the labour market has certain types of skills and qualifications to offer the economy is “struggling” to find workers with specific skills and knowledge needed for the specific jobs they do.

3.4 High direct and indirect costs of institutions

The institutions of a certain state determine, directly or indirectly, how successful both the macro economy and also the micro-subjects, individual companies, will be. Their importance in terms of the economy derives primarily from the way that these institutions affect the direct and indirect costs of companies. In a modern economy it is clear that the institutions determine how successful domestic companies are in the conduct of their business. Therefore, we have monitored the efficiency of the relevant institutions in BiH from the beginning of 2008. Having identified the key economic and non-market institutions (or state organisations) of relevance for business performance, in the search for economic growth, we wanted to see how well certain institutions were doing their job.

When rating the institutions which are relevant for the business sector and for economic growth, in November 2010, the companies surveyed ranked the following as the least effective: the judicial system, the social funds, the Foreign Trade Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the privatisation agencies. The judicial system has consistently been ranked poorly in previous surveys and in the most recent survey 62% of the sample shared the opinion that it is doing its job “quite poorly” or “very poorly”. Given that the judiciary in BiH is regularly ranked as the least effective institution, this is, without doubt, one of the priorities that should be addressed in the future. Although it is not an economic insti-tution per se, the activities of the judicial system have a strong affect on the economy, and the responses of businesses are not coincidental. An efficient market economy requires the presence of the rule of law in as well as a high level of protection of legal property rights. The national courts have a key role to play in this regard. In this case, not only do we have a poor assessment from our respondents but we also have the existing institutional indices that monitor the protection of property rights (i.e., the Governance Indicators published by the World Bank or the Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation) that suggest the same.

The Central Bank of BiH and the Indirect Taxation Authority were rated as the most effective institutions. They are the key state level institutions responsible for macroeconomic stability in the country and thus for monetary and fiscal policy. Ever since we have been monitoring the work of institutions in BiH the Central Bank has appeared as the most efficient among the institutions that we monitor.

in the last poll,

conducted in

November 2010,

there was a slight

change in the list of

the major obstacles

that domestic

companies face.

35



Since the efficiency of the formal institutions in BiH is, in many cases, questionable, their weakness may result in peo-ple preferring the use of informal institutions instead (i.e., informal connections and rules of behaviour) in day-to-day business. This is the primary reason why we regularly monitor responses to questions on the use of informality in the business sector.

Very well Well enough Quite poorly Very poorly

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

Central Bank of BiH 30 29 27 39 53 45 4 17 10 6 14

Indirect Taxation Authority 16 12 12 50 64 55 18 21 21 9 1 6

Entity tax administrations 6 11 11 48 52 44 25 35 33 17 1 9

Judicial system 3 10 7 17 46 26 36 34 44 35 1 18

European Integrations Directorate

7 20 11 18 40 25 20 37 31 10 2 7

FIPA 3 15 6 19 55 35 18 28 21 19 1 14

Privatisation agencies 2 13 3 14 54 30 22 32 30 28 14

Banking agencies 5 11 6 32 53 35 20 30 30 7 5 5

Employment bureaux 3 16 9 36 50 37 24 27 31 17 6 10

Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH

4 17 11 29 44 30 30 35 35 18 1 12

Entity chambers of commerce

11 19 16 28 46 34 27 31 27 19 3 14

Social funds 2 17 7 10 50 22 26 28 31 37 4 21


Table 3.4. How well do the following institutions do their job?

Table 3.5. Please estimate how much you use various informal connections and contacts such as family, friends, colleagues, etc., in your day-to-day business.

VII ’08 IX ’08 XII’08 XI ’09 XI ’10

Very much 8 9 11 28 15

Somewhat 26 31 27 61 37

Not much 31 32 28 10 25

Not at all 22 19 24 1 13

Cannot answer 13 8 10 9


36



It is interesting to note that the results for all of the polls thus far have indicated that informal institutions are used extensively in BiH. Informal connections and contacts are used to a greater or lesser extent by more than 50% of the companies from our sample and this percentage was previously even higher (November 2009 survey). In addition, more than 60% of the companies used informal rules of behaviour. This indicates how important informality is in the country’s economy. To date there have not been any initiatives to establish a more efficient interaction between the formal and informal institutions in this country, which, according to institutional economists, would produce the most efficient institutional set-up in a country.

Lastly, the efficacy of the institutional framework can also be looked at indirectly through the costs that such institutions cause to the private sector. These costs are known as transaction costs and include both direct monetary costs and indirect costs in terms of the amount of time spent on various institutional procedures, obtaining required information, costs due to poor institutional performance and so forth. According to the results of the November survey, a majority of the sample (more than 70%) believe they face higher transaction costs than they should, both in terms of direct monetary costs and in time consuming procedures (more than 60%). Of particular interest is the high percentage who considered the high indirect cost of institutions as a problem, which is certainly given little attention in official statistics, in spite of the clear hindrance it represents to local companies in the conduct of their business.

Since 2008 we have also been monitoring our sample’s estimates of the actual level of direct and indirect costs incurred to them from institutions, bearing in mind that these costs have been identified by the business sector as a major problem for the success of their business activities. According to the results of our November poll, direct payments to institutions in BiH in-creased business costs from 5 to 20% for more than 30% of companies. With regard to indirect or opportunity costs incurred by the business sector attention should be drawn to how high the estimates of these costs were, as can be seen in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6. Can you estimate how much higher your total business costs are because of indirect costs asso-ciated with institutions?

XII '08 XI ‘09 XI ‘10

III '08 BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS

0-5 % 15 18 13 34 32 44 24 28 8

5-10 % 25 21 29 39 40 31 25 25 23

10-20 % 21 24 13 26 26 25 29 32 15


In 54% of companies the indirect costs of the business sector were between 5 and 20% higher due to poor institutional performance. There were certain differences between the entities. In the FBiH this percentage was somewhat higher (57%) compared to the results obtained from entrepreneurs in the RS (38%). The differences noted are not surprising, given that the FBiH has an additional level of administration (the cantons). This, on its own, leads to higher direct and especially indirect institutional costs. All in all, the estimates for institutional costs in BiH suggest that the burden on the business sector is particularly problematic when it comes to the indirect costs companies encounter, but which are not published in official statistics. These costs drain real resources.

Finally, among the results of our November poll we obtained estimates on how the efficiency of the state level and enti-ty institutions may have changed in the last five years. Although BiH’s progress towards the EU and towards Euro-Atlan-tic integration is primarily dependent upon progress in institutional terms it is equally interesting to approach these questions from the perspective of business people, who provide a qualitative assessment of any change in efficiency.

As the results show, the majority of business people surveyed hold the view that institutions at the state level are less functional than before. Taking into account the fact that the survey was conducted after the elections, when it became clear that the formation of the state level government would be quite challenging, these answers are not surprising. The entity-level institutions received a somewhat better assessment, yet respondents from the FBiH assessed their in-

Since 2008 we have

also been monitoring

our sample’s

estimates of the

actual level of direct

and indirect costs

incurred to them

from institutions,

bearing in mind that

these costs have been

identified by the

business sector as a

major problem for

the success of their

business activities.

37



stitutions much lower. Again, this can be attributed to the complex institutional structure of that entity. Such responses must surely be of concern, not just because institutional efficiency in BiH has not improved at either the state or entity level, but because such answers consistently suggest further deterioration.

Table 3.7. Can you estimate how the efficiency of domestic institutions relevant to your operations has changed over the last 5 years?

XI '10 XI '10

STATE INSTITUTIONS ENTITY INSTITUTIONS

BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS

Significantly deteriorated 14 15 4 13 14 4

Slightly deteriorated 27 30 19 21 22 19

Remained the same 38 38 38 37 35 42

Slightly improved 17 16 19 24 23 23

Significantly improved 1 4 1 8

Source: The Business Environment Survey conducted by PRISM Research, Business to Business Survey – top 150, November 2010

3.5. Summary

In the November poll the economic situation in BiH was estimated as being worse than the previous year. This is not surpri-sing if we take into account the negative effects of the economic crisis on country’s economy. Official statistical indicators corroborate such a situation. Thus, almost 60% of the sample stated that the economic situation was worse than in the previous year. The forecasts for the next half-year were somewhat better: 50% of the sample thought that the economic con-ditions would not change. Of concern is the fact that a significant number of respondents from the business sector shared the opinion that the situation would worsen, especially in the RS (44%).

The effects of the economic crisis and the weakness of the BiH economy were noted by a significant percentage of compa-nies that were not using their full capacity (27%), a percentage of those that achieved results that were worse or the same as before (60%), those companies with increased debt (about 50%) and a number of companies operating at a loss (23%). If we disaggregate the indicators stated per entity then the results were worse in the RS than in the FBiH. Overall we can say that the financial status of the majority of companies has not improved and we believe that this is one of the reasons for the visible increase in debt and losses over the past two years.

Different government levels received a relatively weak assessment when it came to the level of support that they provide to the business sector, considering that only 30% of the sample stated that they had any sort of support from state-entity-can-tonal-municipal governments. It has already became a standard that, when evaluating the work of individual institutions, the fiscal and monetary policy institutions at the state level, such as the Central Bank of BiH and the Indirect Taxation Authority, receive a very favourable assessment. The lowest ranked institutions on the list were the judicial system, the social funds, the Foreign Trade Chamber and the privatisation agencies. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the judiciary is always at the bottom, as the lowest ranked institution. This is a clear signal to decision-makers when it comes to areas that need to be improved in order to remove obstacles to private sector operations and eventually to achieve better economic results.

In the context of our particular focus on indirect costs, most companies described the direct and indirect costs to institutions as hindering the conduct of business, principally as a result of the poor efficiency of institutions. Institutional effectiveness is not merely rated as low, but an absolute majority of respondents thought that it has declined over the past five years, parti-cularly at the state level. Under such circumstances it is no wonder that most business people use their own “informal insti-tutions” (i.e., their own connections and contacts) to make things work. Further analysis of the effects of informal institutions and their interaction with formal ones would be one of the key institutional and economic issues requiring additional effort in order to achieve the best results for the country’s economy.

38



4. Socialexclusion

39

S o c i a L E xc Lu S i o N


Social exclusion Nicola Nixon

4.1 Introduction

As the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina moves closer to finalizing its first Social Inclusion Strategy (SIS) it is timely to remind ourselves of why it is important to assess and address social exclusion in BiH in the context of this development. The strategy is prefaced by the European definition of social inclusion: ‘a process which ensures that those at risk of poverty and social exclusion gain the opportunities and resources necessary to participate fully in eco-nomic, social and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of living and well-being that is considered normal in the society in which they live.’21 This EU definition, and therefore the driving conceptual underpinning of the SIS, emphasises the importance of solidarity, community and equity - ideals that are much needed in a post-conflict country such as BiH. The completion of this strategy will mark an important milestone, policy-wise, in the process of aligning government policy with those of the EU. At the same time, and more importantly, it represents the potential for tangible changes for the lives of those people who are more marginalized and vulnerable in BiH society.

UNDP’s National Human Development Reports (NHDRs) of 2007 and 2009 contributed to the understanding of the extent and dimensions of social exclusion in BiH through quantitative and qualitative assessments.22 Both reports pro-vided a series of policy recommendations intended to support the government’s work on the Social Inclusion Strategy. The 2007 report identified the following groups as the most likely to face exclusion – socially, politically, economically and culturally - in BiH:

- The elderly

- Youth

- Persons with disabilities

- Internally displaced persons (in particular residents of collective centres)

- Members of the Roma minority

The report identified the elderly as being at highest risk of poverty and social exclusion: subsequent research shows that more than half of those over 65 are not eligible to receive a pension.23 Other groups experiencing significant levels of exc-lusion are youth, who tend to demonstrate high levels of disillusionment about the future; people with disabilities who have little or no access to education or employment (in addition to being likely to have difficulties in paying healthcare costs); displaced persons (who show higher levels of poverty than the rest of the population); members of the Roma mino-rity who are extremely excluded from education and employment as well as having less access to healthcare; and women who have generally less favourable positions in society and whose level of participation in the labour market is among the lowest in Europe. These forms and degrees of exclusion were not found to have any major differences in the two entities.

The characteristics of social exclusion are also cumulative: groups which have two or more of the above characteristics suffer worse levels of exclusion than others. For example, an elderly person with a disability is more likely to suffer worse degrees of exclusion than a young person with a disability or an elderly person who is in good health. Similarly, each di-mension of exclusion is heightened when considered from a gender perspective. The 2007 report found, for example, that women with disabilities face worse levels of exclusion than other women or men with disabilities.

21 European Commission, ‘Joint Report on Social Inclusion’, Brussels, 2004.

22 UNDP BiH, National Human Development Report, Social Inclusion, Sarajevo, 2007; UNDP BiH, National Human Development Report, Social Capital, Sarajevo, 2009.

23 UNDP, Pension Reform and Social Protection Systems in BiH.UNDP: Sarajevo, 2007. Available at http://www.undp.ba/index.aspx?PID=36&RID=66.

uNdP’s National

Human development

reports (NHdrs)

of 2007 and 2009

contributed to the

understanding

of the extent and

dimensions of social

exclusion in BiH

through quantitative

and qualitative

assessments.

40



Further analysis of social exclusion in the NHDR 2009, looked at the rural/urban divide in BiH and found that significant differences, in terms of access to services, infrastructure and general quality of life, can be identified along that divide. In particular, it highlighted the difficulties faced by women and the elderly in rural areas in comparison to their counterparts in urban areas. It also looked at the situation faced by one of the most vulnerable groups in BiH; residents of collective centres for displaced persons.

The situation of some of the most marginalised groups cannot be assessed in any detail through the use of official or other data sources. Within official statistics, these groups are therefore largely invisible. Nevertheless, as demonstrated below, a considerable amount of information can be gleaned from existing data sources, including in this case, the Early Warning System data, on certain aspects of vulnerability and exclusion in BiH.

4.2 A Social Inclusion Strategy for BiH

The BiH Social Inclusion Strategy is one of two key strategic documents that were finalised at the state level in 2009. It is the first concerted effort by the state government, in cooperation with entity and cantonal governments (and the government of the District of Brčko) to prepare the groundwork for reducing social exclusion in the country. The six main goals of the strategy are:

1. Social protection in the function of employment

2. Improvement in the protection of families with children

3. Improvement in education

4. Improvement in health protection

5. Improvement in pension policy

6. Improvement in the protection of persons with disabilities

Given the significance of this document, in this issue of the EWS, we include an interview with Mirela Ibrahimagić, Head of the Department for the Analysis of Social Inclusion at the Directorate for Economic Planning (DEP). The DEP is the government institution which has overseen the process of preparing the strategy.

it is the first

concerted effort

by the state

government, in

cooperation with

entity and cantonal

governments (and

the government

of the district of

Brčko) to prepare

the groundwork

for reducing social

exclusion in the

country.

41



Interview with Mirela IbrahimagićHead of the Department for the Analysis of Social Inclusion

directorate for Economic Planning22 December 2010

EWS: What is the current status of the Social Inclusion Strategy?

MI: The BiH Social Inclusion Strategy (SIS) was sent to the BiH Council of ministers, entity governments and the gover-nment of Brčko District for adoption in the third quarter of 2010, along with the related Action Plans, developed for each of the four governments. The Strategy (together with Action Plans) was adopted by the FBiH government and the government of the District of Brčko in October 2010, while adoption by the Council of ministers and the RS go-vernment is expected after the formation of the new government in 2011. The ‘Plan for Implementation, Monitoring and Reporting’ was also completed. It provides detailed arrangements for the coordination of SIS implementation. It is currently being discussed by the state and entity coordinating institutions.

EWS: Now that it is completed, looking back at the whole process, what, for you at DEP, was the biggest chall-enge in putting together the strategy?

MI: Before the CDS/SIS process, strategic planning in BiH was usually sector-based. This was reflected in the MTDS24 paper. The introduction of the social inclusion process required a new way of thinking about these kinds of public interventions, however, and capacities for this are insufficient.

The setting under which the Social Inclusion Strategy was produced was characterized by insufficient social statistics, which lack comparability across BiH regions and were not up to Eurostat standards. There was also a lack of capaciti-es and tools (e.g. cost benefit analyses, cost effectiveness analyses, impact analyses) for the planning and monitoring of public interventions at the sector level and weak systematic tracking of policy interventions. Therefore, during the strategic planning and programming period, much of the focus has naturally been upon the construction of an appropriate set of indicators, to guide us and to help us understand the progress of different public interventions at different points of scrutiny as well as to position the country in relation to other relevant countries for comparison.

In addition, we wished to involve lower government levels in the planning process through setting up monitoring and coordinating bodies at cantonal and regional levels. The involvement of civil society was also very important, although their role in the strategic planning process needs to be more clearly defined and CSOs themselves require stronger capacities to contribute to the planning process.

EWS: What challenges do you foresee in terms of implementation, in particular regarding the costs of imple-menting the strategy?

MI: The intention of the Social Inclusion Strategy is to provide a policy framework for development expenditures at all government levels that seek financing through a budget, EU IPA funds, IFI’s loans, grants from donors and the private sector (through public-private partnerships). Thus, the implementation of the SIS will strongly depend on the quality of the link between the SIS sub-goals/priorities and public investment programs (development investments). In other words, the proposed actions are to be translated into development expenditure.

In order to do this, an integrated financial framework for the SIS was developed, with an overview of the main fun-ding allocations for each sub-goal of the SIS. In assessing this information for 2010, it was clear to the DEP that there were weak links between the SIS sub-goals/priorities, the budget and public investment planning processes. This

24 Srednjoročna razvojna strategija

42



understanding serves now as a basis for a more structured discussion over improving the strategic planning, bud-geting and the development investment planning process. These and other key lessons from the planning process have been documented in the Plan for Implementation, Monitoring and Reporting and accompanying Toolkit.

Actual implementation of the SIS will require the setting up of a series of structures at different government levels (coordinating institutions for strategic planning at all government levels including cantons, and monitoring and reporting mechanisms), as well as improved social statistics.

EWS: What are the next steps for the DEP?

MI: What need to be done in the next phase is to bring the planning institutions together with the public investment programming and budgeting at all levels and to make the Public Investment Program (PIP) the key instrument for SIS implementation. These processes will have to be established for future EU integration processes, specifically for the preparation of National Development Plan (NDP).

After agreeing on the final implementation structures in cooperation with the entity coordinators, the DEP will work on building stronger monitoring and reporting mechanisms. These efforts should result in the first progress report by the end of 2011. At the same time, work on the monitoring and reporting structure will continue until such time as the strategy will either be revised or work will commence on the Joint Inclusion Memorandum.

4.3 Unemployment & exclusion

While not originally designed for this purpose, the EWS survey, when considered along a number of alternative lines of disaggregation can give us some information on the perception of their situation now and in the future of some groups of vulnerable people. In 2010, the survey was slightly amended to include a number of additional questions aimed at providing greater insight into the situation of vulnerable groups in the country. For instance, a question intended to identify persons with disabilities in the sample, was included in the questionnaire.

Being employed is a key means for people to avoid exclusion. Graph 4.1 below shows the results of the EWS survey for paid employment broken down by age, gender, and level of urbanization, comparing the results of November 2009 with those from November 2010.

Nov-09

Nov-10

Graph 4.1. Levels of reported paid employment

Urban Rural Male Female 18-35 36-50 50+

%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

43



Graph 4.1 clearly demonstrates the greater levels of exclusion, assessed as a lack of employment, suffered by residents of rural areas in comparison to those in urban areas; female respondents in comparison to male respondents; and those over 50 years of age, in comparison to younger respondents. These inequalities hold for both 2009 and 2010.

Another indicator of exclusion is the degree to which employment is insecure. In other words, if people are in secure employment, they are less likely to be excluded in the long-term, while those in insecure employment may be doing all right at the time of data collection but may become excluded through losing their job shortly afterwards. The EWS questionnaire asks those respondents in employment if they are concerned they will lose their job in the following three months. Graph 4.2, below, illustrates the number who believe they could shortly lose their job, broken down by level of urbanization, gender and age.

Here, we see a slightly different picture. In the case of urbanization, in both years, more respondents in urban areas perceive themselves as job-insecure as their counterparts in rural areas. Similarly, more men than women perceive themselves as such. As an illustration of social exclusion, perhaps the most interesting result is that of the level of job-insecurity perceived by young people. A large proportion of 18 to 35 year olds believe they would shortly be losing their job, in comparison to their counterparts in the age group 36 to 50. In 2010 this number does drop, however, and comes into line with the number of job-insecure respondents among those over 50.

4.4 Trust, satisfaction & quality of life

Other, less tangible indicators, also provide an indication of the comparative levels of exclusion in BiH among different groups. The EWS questionnaire includes questions on social trust and life satisfaction that provide us with an indication of some of the more subjective aspects of exclusion. High levels of generalized trust between citizens can contribute to the smoother functioning of a society – to better social cohesion – as well as reducing levels of marginalization of certain groups. Prior research on social trust in BiH has shown considerably low levels, where less than 10% of the po-pulation believe that generally speaking, most people can be trusted.25

Looking at the results26 from 2009 and 2010, in Graph 4.3 below, we can see consistently low levels of generalized trust, in both 2009 and 2010, among residents of urban areas, respondents over 50 years of age and male respondents. In other aspects, levels of trust vary quite dramatically within one year, in particular among female respondents and those aged between 36 and 50, who appear as more trusting in 2010 than in 2009.

25 UNDP BiH, NHDR Social Capital, 2009, p. 39

26 The EWS questionnaire for 2010 asked this question using a 10 point Likert scale, with 1 denoting a very low level of trust and 10 indicating a high level. Here, a ‘low level of trust’ in Graph 6.3 is defined as all the responses of 1, 2, 3 or 4 on that scale.

Nov-09

Nov-10

Graph 4.2. Levels of job insecurity


%

25

20

15

10

5

0

in the case of

urbanization, in

both years, more

respondents in

urban areas perceive

themselves as job-

insecure as their

counterparts in rural

areas.

44



Levels of general trust are also related to levels of life satisfaction, which the EWS survey also measured in 2009 and 2010.27

In Graph 4.4, above, we can see that, while levels of satisfaction vary little between men and women, residents of rural areas are more likely to be dissatisfied with their lives than residents of urban areas. This accords with the general obser-vation that there is a considerable divide between the quality of life in urban areas in comparison to rural areas in BiH. Similarly, we can see levels of dissatisfaction rise with age, with 18 to 35 year olds reporting the most satisfaction – in both 2009 and 2010 – and respondents over 50 reporting most dissatisfaction. This is also in line with other research on social exclusion, which places the elderly among the most vulnerable groups in BiH.

27 “All things considered, how satisfied would you say you are with your life these days? Please tell me on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very satisfied?” This is a question from the Eurofound Quality of Life survey and can be used for EU comparisons.

Graph 4.3. Low generalized trust (%)

Nov-09

Nov-10

66

68

70

64

62

60

58

56

54

Graph 4.4. Levels of general life satisfaction (%)

Nov-09

Nov-10


30

35

45

40

25

20

15

10

5

0


45



Through the data gathered by the EWS survey, we are also able to look at the well-being of respondents to a certain degree, though their own assessment of their health. When asked about the general state of their health, 21% of res-pondents state that it is ‘excellent’ and 21% state that it is ‘very good’, while according to 10% of respondents, their health is ‘poor’. These figures are broken down in Graph 4.5 below.

Graph 4.5. Self-assessed health as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’

3035

504540

25201510

50


Here, when weaker health outcomes are equated with increased social exclusion, we can see that levels of exclusion are present, as suspected, in rural areas, among more women than men and among many more elderly citizens than those of other age groups. Access to quality health services, in particular for the elderly, as demonstrated by vast amounts of research, is one of the key means of preventing their social exclusion, and again, not surprisingly, improvements in health protection are one of the six goals of the government’s Social Inclusion Strategy.

The EWS survey also includes a question which allows us to assess (roughly) the proportion of people with disabilities in BiH. For the last two rounds of research, respondents have been asked if they have any long-standing illness or disa-bility which limits their activities in any way. It is important, in the long term, for more data to be collected and analysed on the situation of persons with disabilities as one of the groups suffering worst from social exclusion. This is all the more the case, given the inadequate data and information alluded to above in the interview with Ms. Ibrahimagic from the DEP.

According to the EWS survey results from 2010 13.7% of the sample has a long-standing illness or disability which limits their activities.

Graph 4.6. of the population with long-term illness or disability

30

25

20

15

10

5

0Urban Rural Male Female 18-35 36-50 50+

according to the

EWS survey results

from 2010 13.7%

of the sample has a

long-standing illness

or disability which

limits their activities.

46



Interestingly, here we see a slightly higher proportion of men and of urban residents who report having a disability than those in rural areas or women. This may be due to a number of reasons, such as, perhaps, the greater provision of services in urban areas for those with disabilities, or alternatively perhaps, the higher likelihood of urban residents to report an illness or disability than their rural counterparts. In any case, we see a striking relationship between age and disability with the vast majority of persons with disabilities being over 50 years of age.

4.5 Economic exclusion

A number of indicators in the EWS provide us with self-assessed levels of economic deprivation through responses to questions on the household economic situation. When broken down, these are also significant for assessments of social exclusion.

Graph 4.7. Perception of family’s economic situation in the last 12 months


60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Nov-08

Nov-09

Nov-10

The main trend which appears from Graph 4.7 relates to the impact of the global economic crisis in 2009 in BiH. Among all cohorts, a greater proportion of respondents reported a worse economic situation for their families in the 12 months prior to November 2009. Again, in all cases, this has improved somewhat in the year prior to November 2010.

In terms of perceptions of the future, Graph 4.8 shows the number of respondents who believe their economic situati-on will get worse in 2011.

47



Perhaps reflecting the pessimism brought on by the impact of the financial crisis, the results illustrated in Graph 6.8 tend to mirror those in Graph 4.9 with higher numbers of respondents reporting that they believed their economic situation would worsen in November 2009 than in either November 2008 or November 2010. The results also indicate higher levels of pessimism among female respondents and among the elderly. These levels of pessimism may be rela-ted to a weaker sense of well-being and perhaps also, to a greater subjective sense of exclusion.

An additional measure of the economic situation of households is a subjective assessment which asks respondents to assess their economic situation relative to what they perceive as others’ situation.

Nov-08

Nov-09

Nov-10

Graph 4.8. Perception of family’s economic situation in the coming 12 months


30

35

40

25

20

15

10

5

0

Nov-09

Nov-10

Graph 4.9. Percentage of respondents who see themselves as comparatively poor


30

35

45

50

40

25

20

15

10

5

0

an additional

measure of the

economic situation

of households

is a subjective

assessment which

asks respondents to

assess their economic

situation relative to

what they perceive as

others’ situation.

48



4.6 Summary

In the assessment above, it is clear that the EWS data has the potential to illustrate some of the more significant aspects of social exclusion in BiH, in particular with regard to the differences between men and women, between urban and rural areas, and with regard to the situation of the elderly. The dimensions covered – including basic economic situa-tions, aspects of health, life satisfaction and well-being, as well as employment – all back up previous work on social exclusion highlighting the situation of vulnerable groups in these categories. Particularly striking is the fact that in all cases outlined above, the elderly suffer from worse outcomes than all other groups. Further work with the EWS data may also be able to shed light on the situation of other groups, in particular minority returnees, displaced persons and persons with disabilities.

In terms of the future direction of the country’s policy development in this area, it is likely that the Social Inclusion Strategy will form the basis for the next major strategic development, that of a Joint Inclusion Memorandum (JIM), which forms a key part of the EU social policy framework. The JIM is intended to identify the main challenges faced by a candidate country (when BiH moves to that status) in terms of its intentions for addressing poverty and social exclu-sion. The current strategy therefore goes some way towards preparing the ground for the development of a JIM. The development of strategies such as this can be important means for integrating principles of social solidarity into gover-nment policymaking, as well as by improving institutional capacities for social policy development. It is clear, however, that more will need to be done with regard to the measurement of social exclusion in BiH in order to more accurately depict the situation of the manifold levels of deprivation and exclusion suffered by some groups and individuals in BiH.

49



5. income andsocial welfare

50

i Nco m E a N d S o c i a L W E L Fa r E


income and social welfareAleksandar Draganić

5.1 Index of Social Stability remains unchanged

The Social Stability Index showed no change in November 2009 compared with November 2008, in spite of the fact that 2009 was, in economic terms, weaker. In November 2010 the Social Stability Index was at 46 points.

Reasons for this lack of change may be found in the stability of the number of low income households (with income below 500 BAM), different expectations, unchanged average salaries and in the stagnation in purchasing power across the two periods.

Graph 5.1. The Social Stability Index for Bosnia and Herzegovina

The Social Stability Index for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Soci

al S

tab

ility

Inde

x

Survey wave

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

120.00

Feb.05

Jun.05

Sep.05

Nov.05

Apr.06

Jun.06

Sep.06

Nov.06

Apr.07

Sep.07

Nov.07

Mar.08

Jun.08

Okt.08

Nov.08

Nov.10

Chain index 92.00 97.83 93.33 102.38 104.65 102.22 100.00 102.17 104.26 91.84 95.56 106.98 97.83 102.22 100.00 100.00

Composite index 46 45 42 43 45 46 46 47 49 45 43 46 45 46 46 46

the Social Stability

index showed no

change in November

2009 compared with

November 2008,

in spite of the fact

that 2009 was, in

economic terms,

weaker. in November

2010 the Social

Stability index was at

46 points.

51



5.2 Number of low income households the same

Compared with the same time the previous year, the November 2010 poll recorded no significant change in the num-ber of low-income households (less than 500 BAM per month) in BiH (Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Monthly household income (in %) - Bosnia and Herzegovina

Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

No income 3.4 4.5 3.0

Less than 100 BAM 2.1 2.9 2.0

101 - 300 12.8 18.1 14.9

301 - 500 14.6 13.4 17.9

SUBTOTAL to 500 33.0 38.9 38.9

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for this project by Prism Research, November 2010

However, if we disaggregate the data obtained by our survey, it appears that the number of the low-income househol-ds dropped in both entities, and at the same time, in Brčko district, this number increased.

FBiH

RS

Brčko District

Graph 5.2. Number of households with a reported income of less than 500 BAM

60.0

70.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Nov 08

28.1313

37.5778 35.106738.0702

38.5716 37.9602

66.450261.6062

66.1856

Nov 09 Nov 10

The number of low income households (in %)

According to the poll, the number of low-income households (less than 500 BAM per month) stayed at 39% of all house-holds throughout the country. The number of these households in the FBiH fell from 37.5 % to 35 %, and in the RS from 38.5 % to 38 % while it rose from 61.5 % to 66 % in Brčko District. At the other end of the scale, the number of househol-ds with a monthly income above 1500 BAM rose in FBiH (11 % in 2010 compared to 5.2 % in 2009), and fell in the RS (2.3

52



% compared to 2.8 %). This is likely to be a result of the RS Government wage policy – the Government of RS recently cut the wages of all of the managerial staff in the public service by about 20-25%, and of the other staff by 10-15%.28

In terms of ethnic majority areas, the November poll revealed a slight increase in Bosniak majority areas of households with less than 500 BAM per month income (from 40% to 43%) as well as an increase in Serb majority areas (from 39% to 38%) and in Croat majority areas (from 27 % to 19 %). These trends were not the case, however, for the minority groups in those areas. In Bosniak and Serb majority areas a reduction in poor households was recorded (from 49.5% to 48%, and from 59% to 43%, respectively). In contrast, the number of low-income households grew amongst the minority populations in Croat majority areas (from 29% to 34%).

The poll also recorded a slight decrease in the number of low-income households in urban areas (from 33% to 30%) while in rural areas this number remained unchanged (44%). It is also important to mention that the highest number of the low-income households is in the over 50 age group (see Graph 5.3. and Table 5.3).

28 The Law on Changes and Amendments of the Law on Wages of Employees of The RS Administration Bodies (“Official Gazette of The RS“, number 116/09)

Graph 5.3. Number of households with reported income of less than 500 BAM, by category

Urban

29.673

Rural

43.814

Male

38.756

Female

37.112

18-35

23.743

36-50

32.041

50+

56.643The number of low income households (%)

Table 5.2 Monthly household income, including all household salaries and receipts, child allowance, pen-sions, and any other sources of income (in %)

BiH

Income in BAM Urban Rural Men Women 18-35 36-50 51+

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

No income 3.9 2.3 5.0 3.6 5.7 2.7 3.4 3.4 4.7 2.0 4.7 4.1 4.3 3.4

Less than 100 1.9 0.3 3.7 3.2 3.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 n/a 2.5 1.8 3.9 4.2

101 - 300 14.1 11.9 21.2 17.1 15.9 15.4 20.3 14.5 8.2 6.6 6.6 8.7 31.7 27.9

301 - 500 13.0 15.2 13.7 19.9 13.2 18.7 13.6 17.2 11.7 15.1 18.0 17.5 12.4 21.1

Subtotal up to 500

32.8 29.7 43.7 43.8 37.8 38.8 40.1 37.1 26.7 23.7 31.8 32.0 52.3 56.6


the poll also

recorded a slight

decrease in the

number of low-

income households

in urban areas while

in rural areas this

number remained

unchanged.

53



5.3 Differing expectations in FBiH and RS

The reporting period saw numerous reports on the economic crisis. News from Greece, for example, was monitored with concern and there were speculations of a similar scenario in BiH. Nevertheless, given the assistance provided by the Stand-by Arrangement and the International Monetary Fund, 2010 ended without significant disturbances. The 2010 poll shows that the citizens of BiH consider the economic circumstances in their families to be largely unchanged compared to the previous year (52% of respondents).

Table 5.4 Have the economic circumstances in your family changed over the past year (in %)?

BiH FBiH RS Brčko District

SurveyNov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Total improved 10.8 5.4 8.1 10.2 4.7 10.0 9.4 5.4 5.6 43.8 20.2 5.0

Unchanged 53.8 47.0 56.4 51.9 44.8 58.5 58.2 50.6 53.2 28.0 43.7 57.6

Total worsened 34.5 45.9 35.1 36.7 47.8 31.5 31.6 43.7 40.2 25.4 36.1 36.7

DK/NA 1.0 1.7 0.4 1.1 2.7 n/a 0.7 0.3 1.0 2.8 n/a 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


In terms of future expectations, compared with 2009, more people expected their household cash income to increase over the coming six months in the FBiH (from 17% to 28%), while in the RS this number declined (from 29% to 19.5 %). The optimism of FBiH residents is interesting given the announced reduction of wages in the public sector, and the reduction of compensation based on certain rights. The most optimistic people according to the public opinion poll were those from 18-35 age group (29% of them have expected their income to increase).

In 2010 more respondents expected an increase of prices than in 2009, according to the poll. Such an opinion was likely affected by the increase in the price of fuel – in late 2010, there were announcements from the telecommunication and electric energy operators regarding price changes from the beginning of 2011 and a modest increase in price of certain food items. In November 2010, 84% of respondents from FBiH, 77% of respondents from RS and 28% of respondents from Brčko District were expecting further price increases.

FBiH

RS

Brčko District

Graph 5.4. Four-year trend – perceptions of possible price increases

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

Nov 07

89.513100.0

Nov 08

78.080 74.917

432

Nov 09

71.584

54.432

5.999

83.86876.933

27.984

Nov 10

Number of people who expect prices to rise (%)

83.868

54



In terms of perceived job-security, compared with 2009, the number of people who thought that they might lose their job in 2010 decreased in the FBiH, increased in the RS and remained unchanged in Brčko District (Graph 5.5). t This situ-ation is indicative of the problematic status of a large number of employees in the private sector, particularly younger ones, in the absence of unions or union organisation. Finally, the number of persons believing they might lose their job decreased among male respondents (from 16% to 9%) and female respondents (from 15% to 8%).

Graph 5.5. Perception of prospects of unemployment

Nov 09

Nov 10

FBiH

RS

8.006.002.000.00 4.00 10.00 12.00

6.1517.09

13.9812.91

14.00 16.00 18.00

Number of persons expecting to become jobless during the next 3 months ( %)

There were some protests in 2010. The most significant of these were protests by war veterans, servicemen and the di-sabled in Sarajevo; teaching staff in the Una-Sana Canton, public sector employees in the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, and the employees of the companies “Vranica”, “Krivaja“, etc. The number of people surveyed who stated their support for public protest decreased in the FBiH. Nevertheless, nearly 60% of respondents in the FBiH are prepared to engage in some form of protest.

The results of the inquiry into support for public protest suggest the following:

- urban populations are more likely than rural populations to offer support to protests;

- the 36 to 50 age group are the most ready to protest on all issues except unemployment;

- the population of the FBiH is most inclined to support protests, strikes and demonstrations related to low salaries and pensions (62%), job losses (61.5%), and their inability to find employment (59.5%);

- the inhabitants of the RS are most inclined to support the holding of public protests, strikes and demonstrations related to low salaries and pensions (46.5%), job losses (46%) and inability to find jobs (44%)

those most

pessimistic on their

job security were

in the 18 to 35 age

group, 20% of them

in fact.

55



5.4 Purchasing power and living standards unchanged

A look at the entity statistics offices’ data on average salaries and the retail price indices allows us to conclude that there were no significant developments during 2010 (see Table 5.5).

FBiH

RS

Brčko District

Graph 5.6. Willingness to support public protests

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

59.5

44.1

23.5

50.1

33.2

12.8

62.2

46.3

24.2

58.3

42.1

23.4

50.8

36.2

19.1

58.7

36.129.9

Percentage of people who would support the holding of public pro-tests, strikes or demonstrations (Nov 09)

Inabilit

y to find a jo

b

Against entit

y governm

ent

policy

Low salarie

s/pensio

ns

Threats

to eth

nic or c

ivil rights

Conduct of in

tern

ational

com

munity

Property

reco

very

Loss of e

mploym

ent

61.6

26.6

45.9

Table 5.5 Trends in average salary and consumer price indices in the RS and FBiH (from December ‘09 - Oc-tober ‘10)

Month 12/09 01/10 02/10 03/10 04/10 05/10 06/10 07/10 08/10 09/10 10/10

Average net salary

788.0 778.0 772.0 771.0 786.0 774.0 789.0 786.0 785.0 794.0 779.0

CPI (Consumer Price Index)

100.1 101.6 100.1 100.2 98.9 100.1 100 99.9 99.8 100.2 101.3

FBiH

Month 12/09 01/10 02/10 03/10 04/10 05/10 06/10 07/10 08/10 09/10 10/10

Average net salary

807.67 793.94 786.33 809.05 804.55 802.89 802.32 804.15 806.37 802.1 801.88


100.1 101.1 100.2 100.1 99.6 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.8 100.5 100.6

Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, monthly statements during 2010 *Change in Consumer Price Index refers to the change from one month to the next

56



The average monthly wage in October 2010 was 779 BAM in the RS and 802 BAM in the FBiH. On the basis of the data for the first 10 months of 2010 it became obvious that there was a significant drop in the average wage in both entities during the year. From October 2010 to December 2009 the average wage in the RS decreased by 1.14% and in the Federation by 0.72%. 29

29 Data from the Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, 2010.

Graph 5.7. Average wage - for 10 months in 2010, by entity30

740.00

807.67

788.00

12/09

793.94

778.00

01/10

786.33

772.00

02/10

809.05

771.00

03/10

804.55

786.00

04/10

802.89

774.00

05/10

802.32

789.00

06/10

804.15

786.00

07/10

806.37

785.00

08/10

802.10

794.00

09/10

801.88

779.00

10/10

760.00

780.00

800.00

820.00

Average net salary trends in RS i FBiH

FBiHRS

57



30

According to data from the entity pension and disability insurance funds, the average pension in November 2010 was 338.68 BAM in the FBiH and 320.22 BAM in the RS. Comparing this data with the average pension in December 2009, the average pension decreased by 1.23% in the FBiH while in the RS that drop was 0.03%.

30 Data from the Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, 2010.

Graph 5.8. Changes in wages in 2010, by industry cluster31

Agriculture

Fisheries

Mining and quarries

Manufacturing

Electricty, gas and water - production and distribution

Construction - civil works

Wholesale and retail, motor vehicle repairs and personal or household goods

Hotels and resaturants

Transport, warehousing and communications

Financial mediation

Activities related to property renting and business activities

Government administration, defence, mandatory social insurance

Education

Healthcare and social work

Other communal, social or personal services

TOTAL average

2.78%6.94%

4.96%-5.51%

3.73%-1.66%

5.89%0.09%

-0.11%1.43%

5.65%0,16%

10.95%1.98%

6.67%-0.32%

3.29%-4.19%-3.96%

-0.42%-0.47%

-4.66%-5.94%

0.25%-7.72%

0.08%1.80%

-4.29%-4.30%

-0.83%-1.14%

-0.72%

Increase/decrease in wages in October 2010 in comparison to October 2009 in RS and FBiH

according to data

from the entity

pension and

disability insurance

funds, the average

pension in November

2010 was 338.68

Bam in the FBiH and

320.22 Bam in the

rS.

58



31

Nevertheless, there were no changes when it comes to the lowest and highest pensions in either of entities. The lowest pension in the RS remained at 160 BAM, while in the Federation it continued to be 296 BAM. The highest pension in FBiH was 1,975 BAM and 1,564 BAM in the RS.

2009 saw modest deflation. In 2010, however, both entities saw an increase in the Consumer Price Index and an incre-ase in the price of goods and services. Thus, data from the entity statistics offices shows in November 2010 the CPI in the RS was up 2.4% in comparison to 2009, and up 2.3% in the Federation. If we compare the data for the first eleven months of 2010 with the same period in 2009, we also find that average prices for goods and services were up around 2.4% in the RS and 1.6% in the FBiH.

31 Source: RS and FBiH pension funds, December 2010

Graph 5.9. Average pensions32

300.00

342.90

320.11

12/09

342.01

320.85

01/10

343.03

318.69

02/10

342.77

318.73

03/10

341.13

319.16

04/10

342.00

319.44

05/10

341.41

319.62

06/10

339.76

319.80

07/10

339.78

319.88

08/10

339.08

320.11

09/10

338.68

338.95

320.22

320.31

11/1010/10

310.00

320.00

340.00

330.00

350.00

Average pension trends - at monthly level in RS and FBiH

(Decembar 09 - Novembar 2010)

FBiHRS

Table 5.6 Pension data for RS and FBiH, December 2009 and November 2010

FBiH RS

December 2009 November 2010 December 2009 November 2010

Minimum pension 296.00 296.36 160.00 160.00

Maximum pension 1975.00 1975.71 1564.56 1564.00

Average pension 342.90 338.68 320.11 320.22

Source: RS and FBiH pension funds, December 2010

59



32

Looking at particular consumables, the first eleven months of 2010 saw a significant increase in prices in the RS in comparison with the same period in 2009 in alcohol and tobacco (12.5 %), communications (8.4 %), education (4.5 %), transportation (4.4 %), housing, water, electricity, and gas and other fuels (2.7 %). At the same time, the prices of clothing and footwear (3.2%) and leisure and culture (0.3 %) have dropped. The highest rise in prices in the period observed in the FBiH was seen in alcohol and tobacco (11.2 %), communications (6.3 %), transportation (4 %), and food and non-alcoholic beverages (2.9 %). At the same time, the prices of clothing and footwear (7.6 %), and healthcare (1 %) have dropped.

32 Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, December 2010

Graph 5.10. Growth/fall in product prices, by month (CPI)33

98.00

100.1

100.1

12/09

101.6

101.1

01/10

100.1

100.2

02/10

100.2

100.1

03/10

98.9

99.6

04/10

100.1

100.0

05/10

100.0

99.9

06/10

99.9

100.0

07/10

99.8

99.8

08/10

100.2

100.5

09/10

100.2

101.3

100.4100.6

11/1010/10

99.00

100.00

101.00

102.00

Consumer Price Index (CPI) trend in RS and FBiH (Dec 2009 - Nov 2010

FBiHRS

RS FBiH

XI 2010 / X 2010

I-XI 2010/ I-XI 2009

XI 2010/ XI 2009

XI 2010 / X 2010

I-XI 2010/ I-XI 2009

XI 2010/ XI 2009

Total 100.2 102.4 102.4 100.4 101.6 102.3

Food and non alcoholic beverages 100.4 98.9 101.3 100.8 98.9 102.9

Alcohol and tobacco 100.0 121.3 112.5 99.7 119.4 111.2

Clothes and footwear 99.9 96.7 96.8 99.9 94.9 92.4

Accommodation, water, electricity, gas and other fuels

100.1 104.2 102.7 100.8 101.9 101.6

Furniture, household goods and regular maintenance

100.0 99.7 100.1 100.2 100.3 101.7

Health 99.9 103.0 102.1 100.0 100.6 99.0

Transport 100.6 106.6 104.4 100.0 107.3 104.0

Communication 100.0 108.3 108.4 100.0 106.3 106.3

Leisure and culture 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.1 101.4 101.4

Education 100.0 105.5 104.5 100.0 100.6 100.9

Restaurants and hotels 100.0 100.3 100.7 100.0 101.8 100.7

Other goods and services 99.8 100.7 100.1 100.0 100.7 100.7

Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, December 2010

Table 5.7 Consumer Price Index (CPI) by category (November 2010)

60



Inflation rates in the two entities in 2010 were likely affected by the application of the new Law on Excise Fees from January 2010. This Law introduced higher excise fees on tobacco products, coffee, and petroleum derivatives which impacted upon the price of alcohol, tobacco and transportation. The rise in electricity costs and the water supply price also contributed to an increase in prices related to housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels and the increase in prices of services with regard to communications. We should also mention that the increase of the index seen in edu-cation cluster was due to an increase in the price of kindergarten services in the RS.

In terms of people’s desire to leave the country, looking at the results from the public opinion poll conducted over the last four years, it is evident that a large number of citizens are considering leave the country if they have the op-portunity. The liberalisation of the visa regime which started on December 15, 2010, may help to some to realize their intentions.

Graph 5.11. Willingness to leave BiH

60.00

70.00

90.00

100.00

80.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00BiH FBiH RS 18-35 36-50 51+

Nov 07 45.58 46.41 44.21 65.90 56.42 19.54

Nov 08 40.36 40.08 41.56 63.29 39.38 17.57

Nov 09 44.02 52.10 32.69 66.54 51.92 22.22

Nov 10 47.32 46.49 49.17 67.06 56.57 20.80

% of people who would leave BiH if the opportunity arose

inflation rates in the

two entities in 2010

were likely affected

by the application

of the new Law on

Excise Fees from

January 2010. this

Law introduced

higher excise

fees on tobacco

products, coffee,

and petroleum

derivatives which

impacted upon the

price of alcohol,

tobacco and

transportation.

61



5.5 Perceived economic situation of households worsens

This reporting period was marked by continued economic crisis primarily reflected in the large number of lay-offs and a commensurate increase in unemployment. One of the consequences, in times of reduced economic activity, is the reduction of income of both companies and individuals, as well as the reduction of the country’s income. Consequently additional pressure is put on the social protection system. The pension system in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as the system of health care, unemployment funds and funds used for child and maternity allowance depends, almost entire-ly, on the wages of the employed. Economic effects felt due to the fall in economic activity, accompanied by the decre-ase in employment and wages lead to significant problems in healthcare and pension and disability insurance sector.

In 2010, governments in the RS have, on more than one occasion, been paying advances, increasing tranches and even changing legal solutions in order to free certain funds needed to pay out pensions. This was perceived as extremely problematic in terms of Fund’s future sustainability and its ability to pay users. Despite the promises contained in a Memorandum on the Stand-By Arrangement signed with the IMF, governments at all levels are still unable to reduce unnecessary expenditures, thus putting the Arrangement and the stability of the overall state apparatus at risk.

In 2010, we found that there was an increase in the percentage of people who assess their household income as below average. 45% of the sample in the FBiH, 58% in the RS and 71% in Brčko District described themselves as being below the average with regard to their household economic situation. This was probably as a result of the impact of the eco-nomic crisis on (un)employment and income levels and the absence of active measures to secure a minimum standard of living.

Table 5.8 Household status - self-described (%)


Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Barely surviving 8.1 14.9 11.4 5.1 8.3 9.4 11.5 23.7 13.1 25.7 28.5 20.9

Well below average 11.4 12.1 20.1 9.2 11.6 20.6 14.3 11.6 16.1 17.3 27.7 42.7

Somewhat below average 24.3 22.0 19.9 24.4 25.1 15.5 24.1 17.7 28.5 24.4 17.6 7.0

TOTAL below average 43.8 49.0 51.5 38.7 45.0 45.4 49.9 53.0 57.7 67.4 73.7 70.6

Izvor: Ispitivanje javnog mnijenja za potrebe ovog projekta, PRISM Research, novembar 2010.

Bosnia and Herzegovina spends 4% of GDP on cash payments through social security programmes that are not based on contributions.33 With such a large part of GDP going on cash payments BiH allocates more public spending for this purpose than most other countries in Europe or Central Asia: expenditures are far higher than the other countries of the region, which tend to average around 1.6%, and more than the countries of the OECD, whose spending is around 2.5%. Such a level of expenditure on cash payments through social welfare programmes that are not based on contributions is fiscally very difficult to sustain, particularly given the looming impact of the global financial and economic crisis on national revenue. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund are contributing to a review of existing social wel-fare system policies and practice in order to introduce reforms.34

33 Svjetska banka (2009), Bilješke o politici – socijalna davanja u Bosni i Hercegovini: kreiranje održivog sistema socijalne zaštite zasnovanog na stvarnim potrebama, Sarajevo, str 3-8.

34 Svjetska banka (2009), Zaštita siromašnih u vrijeme globalne krize: Ažurirani izvještaj o siromaštvu za Bosnu i Hercegovinu za 2009. godinu, Jedinica za siromaštvo i ekonomsko upravljanje, Region Evrope i Srednje Azije, str. 37-47.

62



5.6 Summary

The Social Stability Index remained unchanged in comparison to the results from November. Reasons for this lack of change since the previous period may be sought in the identical number of declared low income households (those with income of less than 500 BAM), similar expectations, purchasing power and average wage stagnation. However, a large number of persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina are considered poor, especially when it comes to the rural popu-lation.

The reporting period saw numerous reports on the economic crisis and its effects as well as a rather pessimistic pro-gnosis for 2010. The decrease in economic activity however, luckily, was not that extensive and 2010 ended without si-gnificant structural disturbances. This also affected the expectations of respondents. The reporting period was marked by more optimistic attitudes of respondents from FBiH in comparison to those from the RS, and more optimism among women. The inhabitants of the Federation were still more inclined to support protests, strikes and demonstrations than those of RS or Brčko District, although the number of persons ready to provide such support is decreasing in general. If we look into average net wage from October 2010 in comparison to the average net wage from December 2009, it is evident that in the RS it dropped by 1.14 %. At the same time, the average net wage in FBiH dropped by 0.72 %. 2010 saw stagnation in the average pension level in both entities. At the same time, both entities saw the growth of the Consumer Price Index as well as an increase in the price of goods and services. Thus, the entity statistics offices data shows that in November 2010, the Consumer Price Index in the RS was by 2.4% higher in comparison to the one from November 2009, and 2.3% higher in the FBiH.

Finally, the existing social protection system is facing huge challenges due to effects caused by the economic crisis. More specifically, the pension system, health care system as well as the funds for the unemployment insurance and those used to pay out the child and maternity allowances are completely dependent of the wages of the employed, leaving them vulnerable to being overstretched in times of high unemployment.

63



6. inter-ethnicrelations

64

i N t E r - E t H N i c r E L a t i o N S


inter-ethnic relations Senad Slatina

6.1 The Interethnic Stability Index rises

Maj 00

Aug 00

Jan 01

Apr 01

Jun 01

Aug 01

Dec 01

Mar 02

Apr 02

Jun 02

Aug 02

Okt 02

Jan 03

Jul 03

Sep 03

Nov 03

Feb 04

Jun 04

Sep 04

Nov 04

Feb 05

Jun 05

Sep 05

Nov 05

Apr 06

Jun 06

Sep 06

Nov 06

Apr 07

Sep 07

Nov 07

Mar 08

Jun 08

Okt 08

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

94 10 98 10 10 10 10 98 10 10 10 98 10 10 97 10 98 10 10 10 96 97 10 10 10 10 10 96 10 93 10 10 10 98 96 10

73 69 73 72 73 74 76 76 75 75 75 76 75 76 76 74 76 75 76 77 77 74 72 75 76 76 76 79 76 77 72 74 78 78 77 74 79

Index interethnic stability

Survey wave

60

70

80

90

100

110

The

Inte

reth

nic

Stab

ility

Inde

x

Chain indexComposite index

Graph 6.1. The Interethnic Stability Index

In contrast to what might be expected, given that 2010 was an election year in which the general political climate was filled with nationalist rhetoric, the Interethnic Stability Index in fact indicates a degree of improvement in interethnic relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) in comparison to the same period in the previous year. As shown in Graph 1, the composite Interethnic Stability Index increased by five points in comparison to the same period the previous year.

Although the local scene saw a multitude of public events and inflammatory political speeches throughout the year and especially during the campaign itself, which might have significantly eroded interethnic relations, it seems that they have not particularly affected the perception of the public in terms of values of coexistence and interethnic res-pect.

This positive change may suggest a trend of political ‘maturation’ of the citizens of BiH, whose individual opinions on interethnic tolerance were not so decisively affected by inflammatory proclamations.

this positive change

may suggest a

trend of political

‘maturation’

of the citizens

of BiH, whose

individual opinions

on interethnic

tolerance were not

so decisively affected

by inflammatory

proclamations.

65



6.2 Regional and local events

Despite the stagnant political atmosphere within the country, several events occurred within the region which had a positive impact on interethnic relations within BiH; for example, the emergence of the new President of the Republic of Croatia, Ivo Josipović on the political stage. In a short time, the new Croatian president promoted the politics of recon-ciliation within the region and gained favour in Croatia, BiH and Serbia. During his first visit to BiH, he apologized for all the crimes committed in BiH in the name of Croatia in a speech to the Parliamentary Assembly. He repeated similar messages during subsequent visits throughout the country. His honouring of the victims of other ethnicities as well as his readiness to seek forgiveness for the actions of members of his own ethnicity produced a significant response throughout the region.

A comparable event was the public appearances of the President of Serbia, Boris Tadić. From the start of 2010 he began promoting the idea of a declaration to condemn the crimes committed in Srebrenica in 1995, to be adopted by the National Assembly of Serbia. Such a declaration was adopted on March 31, 2010. The declaration was recognized within the region as the strongest public condemnation to date from the Serbian government of the crimes committed in July 1995. In 2010, Serbia also finally confirmed the appointment of the Ambassador of BiH to Belgrade, following a three year delay.

A further event which likely worked to improve interethnic tolerance was the public apology for crimes committed by the Army of BiH by the newly appointed Bosniak member of BiH Presidency, Bakir Izetbegović.

Encouraging messages also came from European and American officials throughout the year. At the beginning of 2010, at the time of the publication of the European Commission’s progress report, BiH was visited by Baroness Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. During her visit she sent a message that the EU understands the differences between communities in BiH, but that it considers BiH to be a coun-try capable of addressing the European institutions with one voice. The same message was delivered by Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, during his visit in late 2010. In the meantime, all the relevant European institutions approved the visa regime liberalisation and the citizens of BiH were given the opportunity to travel to EU countries without visas. Encouraging messages were also delivered by Hilary Clinton, the US State Secretary, during her visit in October 2010, on the occasion of the opening of the new US Embassy building. Several months earlier, the US Embassy announced that the citizens of BiH can, in the future, apply for US visas that would last to up to ten years. Such a combination of important political messages and tangible benefits to citizens of BiH probably significantly affected their perception on the importance of good interethnic relations despite the challenges in this regard.

In terms of events which likely had negative effects on interethnic relations, there was the arrest of the former war-time Republic of BiH Presidency Member, Professor Ejup Ganić in London. Several months passed while the court in London were deciding whether to extradite him to the Republic of Serbia, where an investigation was ongoing into his actions in an event in Dobrovoljačka Street in Sarajevo in May 1992 during which the forces of Army of BiH attacked a convoy of the Yugoslav People’s Army. The court set Ejup Ganić free and he returned to Sarajevo. Finally, the peak of election campaign rhetoric appeared in the last part of the year during which slogans on the creation of third entities, entity secession or their abolishment were frequently heard.

a further event

which likely

worked to improve

interethnic tolerance

was the public

apology for crimes

committed by the

army of BiH by the

newly appointed

Bosniak member of

BiH Presidency, Bakir

izetbegović.

66



No - Never

Yes - Often

Yes - Often

DK / NA

Yes - Several times

Graph 6.2. Ethnic-based harassment and physical attacks

100%90%

70%

50%

30%

10%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Bosniaks Croats Serbs

Have you or anyone you live with been subjected to verbal harassment or physical attack solely due to your ethnicity over the past year?

6.3 On the acceptability of living with others

When it comes to personal safety in terms of interethnic relations in BiH, in this case meaning verbal or physical haras-sment of persons based exclusively on their ethnicity, it seems that the situation stabilized even further. Contrary to a trend recorded the year before, the survey conducted in November 2010 showed an increased number of persons sta-ting that they have not been verbally or physically harassed due to their ethnicity among all three constituent peoples in BiH. That percentage was highest among the Serb respondents - 98%, 95% among Bosniaks and 91% among Croats.

While this does appear to be a positive result the impact on that result of the fact that a large number of respondents live in largely mono-ethnic environments should not be underestimated, since it would be difficult for them to experi-ence ethnic-based harassment.

Disagree Agree DK / NA

Graph 6.3. The acceptability of minority returns

100%90%

70%

50%

30%

10%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%


Do you agree or disagree that members of minority peoples, who lived in this munici-pality before the war, should return to their homes?

67



As Graph 6.3 above shows, there is a high level of support among respondents from all three constituent peoples in BiH in terms of their support to minority returns, i.e. the return to their homes of persons that would, in their community, be part of an ethnic minority. The percentage of those approving of minority return is highest among Bosniak respon-dents, 95% (in comparison to 90% from previous year). Identical progress in that regard can be seen among Serb res-pondents - 89% of them approve of such a return (again, 5% more than in the previous year). The biggest improvement here is registered among Croat respondents – 87% of them are now supporting such a return (compared to 80% in the previous year). As an indicator of interethnic stability the issue of returns is somewhat weakened by the fact that for many it is now an irrelevant issue or a process that is completed. More illustrative in terms of drawing conclusions on actual readiness to live with ‘others’ are questions of having a person who does not belong to your ethnic group living in your neighbourhood, having that person’s children going to school with your children or having a member of your family marry somebody who is not of the same ethnicity as you.

In terms of attitudes of the constituent peoples to these issues we can see the following results in the 2010 poll. Serb respondents appear to find it slightly more acceptable to share a neighbourhood with people of Croatian ethnicity rather than those of Bosniak ethnicity (79% compared with 73%). They are also generally happier for their children to go to school with Croat children than Bosniak children (78.5% compared with 73.5%), while around the same percen-tage are fine with the idea of someone from a Bosniak background marrying into their family as someone from a Croat background (37% compared with 39.5%).

Looking at the responses of Croat respondents we can see that roughly the same proportion find it acceptable to resi-de in the same neighbourhood as Bosniaks (90%) and Serbs (92%). 83% find it acceptable for their children to attend the same school as Serb children, while somewhat less (77%) are happy for their children to go to school with Bosniak children. Almost half of all Croat respondents are fine with the marriage of one of their family members to someone of Serb ethnicity, but only 38% for someone with Bosniak ethnicity.

Finally, in terms of Bosniak respondents, 98% are happy to live in the same neighbourhood as Croats, and 96% are happy to live in the same neighbourhood as Serbs. The vast majority of Bosniak respondents are also happy for their children to attend interethnic schools with Serb children (96%) and Croat children (98%). A significant proportion, however, (61%) find it unacceptable for someone in their family to marry anyone from one of the other two constituent peoples.

Overall, therefore, the perception poll suggests that while significant majorities of each of the three main ethnic groups are generally happy to interact with members of other ethnicities on an everyday basis in their local communities or their families via schooling, yet a significant number of all three would not go so far as to consider it acceptable for someone of one of the other ethnicities to become a member of the family.

In terms of trends, generally speaking, Bosniak respondents tend to show the higher levels of interethnic tolerance with the degree of acceptability of ‘others’ ranging from 70 to 90 percent, except where mixed marriages are concerned where an increased reluctance can be observed (61% find it unacceptable to marry Croats compared with 49% in 2009). Positive trends can also be seen in the percentage of Croat respondents who find it acceptable to share a neighbourho-od with Bosniaks which is 90%; up 17% on 2009. Croat respondents also show an increased level of reluctance towards mixed marriages; however, with 62% of Croat respondents find it unacceptable for their family member to marry a Bosniak, 24% more than in the survey conducted last year. The other major change is the number of Croats who find it acceptable to share a neighbourhood with Serbs; up 20% on 2009 to 92%.

as an indicator of

interethnic stability

the issue of returns is

somewhat weakened

by the fact that for

many it is now an

irrelevant issue or

a process that is

completed.

68



6.4 Ethnic identity and mobility

Significant increases in the sense of ethnic pride were recorded among the Bosniak and Croat respondents for whom reported levels of pride increased by more than 10% to 86% for Croat respondents and to 88% for Bosniaks.

Etnicity Citizenship

Graph 6.4. Ethnic Pride and Civic Identity

100%90%

70%

50%

30%

10%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%


How proud are you to be a member of your ethnicity? How proud are you to be a citi-zen of BiH?

Graph 6.4 demonstrates that Bosniak respondents appear to feel very proud to be citizens of BiH. 86% of these respon-dents feel this way, 20% more than the previous year. Such significant oscillations from one year to another, without a constant trend, are possibly the result of events in daily politics. Identification with the state of BiH is a fundamental starting point of Bosniak politics thus the increase of the percentage of Bosniak respondents feeling very proud to be citizens of BiH during the year when the country had its visa regime liberalised for travel to EU countries does not come as a surprise. This level of identification with the state they live in is not shared by the two other ethnic groups in BiH. Only 42% of Croat respondents feel very proud to be citizens of BiH and only 19 % of Serb respondents feel that way.

When it comes to pride in ethnic identity, this was expressed more by younger people (86% of the sample) compared to older ones (80.5%). In addition, men appear to be more likely to express pride in their ethnicity than women (86% compared with 81.2%). A more significant difference was recorded between residents of rural and urban areas with stronger feelings of pride expressed by urban residents (56.2%) than in rural areas (47%).

Finally, when asked: Would you move to a town where the members of a different ethnic group than yours represent a ma-jority, for economic reasons? only Serb respondents expressed increased readiness for such a move (up 6%). The level of readiness among Bosniak respondents, meanwhile, dropped by 9% and among Croat respondents by 12 %.

69



Readiness to migrate due to economic reasons to locations where other ethnic groups are a majority decreased among Bosniak respondents compared to the previous year and is now at 49%. Croat respondents have been showing lower interest in such movement for a few years now and only 29% would consider moving for better job prospects. Finally, 36 percent of the Serb sample stated that they would move to a location in which their ethnic group is not a majority. Not surprisingly, a higher level of readiness for such migrations can be seen among urban respondents than those from rural areas (47% compared to 32%) and among younger respondents compared with older ones (49% compared to 26%). Finally, men appear to be slightly more likely to move than women (42% compared with 36%).

6.5 Opinion of the international community

The set of questions on citizens’ attitudes towards some of the key international community institutions yielded some interesting trends.

Respondents to the opinion poll are asked whether they believe a new war would break out if international forces leave the country. A vast majority of respondents from each of the three constituent peoples appears to feel that the formal presence of these forces is no longer necessary as a guarantor of peace. Indeed, these majorities increased from the previous year. The most dramatic increase was seen among Croat respondents (up 30%). Approximately 91.5% of Croats, 71% of Bosniaks, and 80% of Serbs share the opinion that the departure of international forces would not lead to a war.

Most concern with such a departure is still felt by Bosniak respondents. This is not surprising since, from the very end of the war, a key message in the Bosniak political framework is the importance of a foreign military presence to guarantee peace in BiH. Nevertheless, it seems that even Bosniak respondents no longer see the need for their physical presence. In addition, progress in terms of defence reforms has changed the situation in BiH significantly has reduced the presen-ce of the international force.

It is also interesting to consider the changes in the perception of respondents of the role of the Office of the High Representative (OHR), the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA). Here, we can see a significant decrease in terms of the support of Bosniak respondents to political reforms initiated by the OHR. The percentage of Bosniak respondents supporting the OHR’s political reforms fell from 67 % in 2009 to 57%. An opposite trend was ap-parent among Croat respondents – the number of those perceiving the work of OHR in a positive light increased from

Yes No Don’t know

Graph 6.5. Readiness to migrate to areas where other ethnic groups represent a majority (%)

100%90%

70%

50%

30%

10%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Bosniaks Hrvati SERBS

Da li biste zbog bolje poslovne ponude preselili u grad u kojem su većina pripadnici nekog drugog naroda kojem Vi ne pripadate ? approximately

91.5% of croats,

71% of Bosniaks,

and 80% of Serbs

share the opinion

that the departure of

international forces

would not lead to a

war.

most concern with

such a departure is

still felt by Bosniak

respondents.

70



52 to 62%. When it comes to Serb respondents, who tend to consider the OHR’s work more negatively, the percentage of those who approve fell from 30% to 20.5%.

During the reporting year, the OHR carried on the existing practice of decreasing its activities and focusing on several remaining tasks that should be completed before its closing. In 2010, the OHR issued only 10 decisions, 8 of these referred to the abolishment of earlier decisions banning political work or the return of passports to individual persons that were deprived of these rights by earlier decisions35. Such a lack of engagement by the OHR probably had a decisive impact in terms of the reduction of support by Bosniak respondents. For the past several years, Croat political parties have been suggesting that the OHR should reduce its interventions and, in general, leave the processes to be dealt with by local political elites. It seems that the correspondence of these expectations with the actions of the OHR provide insight into the reasons for the 10% increase of those assessing the work of OHR as positive. During 2010 OHR officials have on several occasions stated legal interpretations contrary to the position of the Serb political elite, in particular with regard to state property. This likely contributed to the reduction in Serb respondents who positively assess the work of the OHR.

When it comes to the role of the EU and the US in BiH, respondents were asked to state whether they approve of this work or not. The central event that probably had a decisive effect in terms of the way in which the EU was perceived was the decision of EU institutions to abolish visas for BiH citizens. When it comes to the US, there were a few actions of officials that entered the public eye in 2010: the commitment of the US to the development of ‘Dayton BiH’ was reitera-ted on several occasions, speculations with regard to the appointment of the new special representative of the US for BiH and the region were dismissed, the new ambassador was appointed and the new Embassy building was opened in Sarajevo. In addition, a decision was made that the citizens of BiH may apply for visas that would be valid for ten years.

In terms of the results of the opinion poll, an increase in support for the work of both the EU and the US is evident among Bosniak respondents with 84% approving the work of the EU (up 23% on 2009) and 63% approving of the work of the USA (up 8%). Similarly, Serb respondents tend to support the work of these two international actors. The percen-tage of those who approve of the work of the EU increased by 22 percent and is now at 62 percent. The approval of the work being done by USA increased as well, but only by 3 percent and is now at 39%. In contrast, Croat respondents tend to view their work more negatively and here we see a downward trend: only 45% approve of the work of the EU (down by 20% from 2009) and even less support the work of the US (39% down from 59% in 2009).

6.6 Summary

Overall, from the poll results it does look as though interethnic relations have improved somewhat over the past year. This is despite the abundance of local events that had the potential to significantly erode interethnic relations in BiH in 2010, in particular the election campaign and the period immediately afterwards. Somewhat surprisingly these events did not appear to have an overly negative effect on public perceptions of the values of coexistence and interethnic respect. The level of interethnic violence appeared to go down in 2010; there was an increase in support to minority return; all three constituent peoples reported higher levels of acceptability for coexistence, in particular with Serbs (although not for intermarriage).

The sense of pride in belonging to one’s own ethnic group increased among Croat and Bosniak respondents, although there is a slight drop among Serb respondents. This is not surprising given the political context in 2010. The enthusiasm of Bosniak respondents for their citizenship of BiH is not shared by other two peoples in BiH. Readiness to move to the parts of the country where other ethnic groups are a majority dropped among the Bosniak and Croat respondents and increased among Serb respondents. The sample from all three ethnic groups shows an increased percentage of those sharing the opinion that the withdrawal of EUFOR would not lead to a new war in BiH. In that sense, there appears to be a strong perception that the country is increasingly stable.

35 Ured Visokog predstavnika u BiH: http//:www.ohr.int.

71



7. Public andpersonalsecurity

72

P u B L i c a N d P E r S o Na L S E c u r i t y


Public and personal securityAleksandar Draganić

7.1 The Security Stability Index

Graph 7.1. The Security Stability Index

The Security Stability Index

Secu

rity

Stab

ility

Inde

x

Survey wave

80.00

90.00

100.00

110.00

Feb05

Jun05

Sep05

Nov05

Apr06

Jun06

Sep06

Nov06

Apr07

Sep07

Nov07

Mar08

Jun08

Okt08

Nov08

Nov09

Nov10

Chain index 101.15 97.73 101.16 98.85 100.00 98.84 103.53 97.73 102.33 97.73 102.33 96.59 101.18 102.33 100.00 98.86 100.00

Composite index 88 86 87 86 86 85 88 86 88 86 88 85 86 88 88 87 87

According to the public opinion poll of November 2010, the Security Stability Index was 87 points which leaves it un-changed from 2009.

Taking into account the other indices monitored in this report, the recording of such a high value is likely due to the stability of the security status of the country as well as other improvements in law-enforcement and a crime rate that is no worse than in other developed countries. However, it should be noted that there is still space for improvement in this area. There are numerous reports by national and international institutions corroborating such a standpoint, espe-cially when it comes to coordination of the work of the police forces, the fight against organized crime and corruption, the strengthening of law-enforcement agencies, improvement in the monitoring system and the rate of solved criminal cases. Given the improved level of approval of the work of the police forces and the judiciary there are evidently posi-tive steps that have been made.

according to the

public opinion poll

of November 2010,

the Security Stability

index was 87 points

which leaves it

unchanged from

2009.

73



7.2 General security situation – No change

A number of international reports have confirmed that the overall security situation in BiH is stable. According to the 21st and 22nd quarterly reports by Baroness Catherine Ashton36, EU Minister of Foreign Affairs, sent to UN Security Council on October 5, 2010 on the European Union Military Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the overall situation during the reporting period was assessed as peaceful and stable (from December 01, 2009 till May 31, 2010). Despite the fact that nationalist rhetoric was present, it appeared to have no impact in terms of the general security situation.

Adverse economic circumstances, accompanied by delays in the payment of wages, lead to the organisation of nume-rous strikes all over BiH. Reactions from the government and its law-enforcement bodies were described as professio-nal and had no effect on the overall security situation. The most significant event recorded within the reporting period was the protest of war veterans and disabled war veterans of the FBiH in Sarajevo. According to EUFOR estimates, more than two thousand people protested against current government policies while more than sixty persons, including fifteen police officers were injured in violent clashes.

It is notable that the number of EUFOR soldiers remained unchanged in 2010, within the mandate defined by the Ge-neral Framework Agreement for Peace and the peacekeeping needs. Cooperation between EUFOR and the BiH Armed Forces has been assessed as excellent. During the reporting period, EUFOR transferred civil control over the transpor-tation of arms to the BiH government and to the Armed Forces of BiH.

The 38th report made by the High Representative to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Valentin Inzko37, lists the overall security conditions as stable but observes the presence of increased rhetoric by representatives of the RS Government. Impor-tant progress was observed with regard to the meeting of visa liberalisation requirements, although there was no other notable progress towards the EU and NATO integrations. This is also the case with the implementation of the war crimes processing strategy, according to which, some jurisdiction was to be transferred from the level of BiH to other levels. Even with the problems listed, the overall security status was assessed as satisfactory.

7.3 Improvements in public safety

According to data received from the ministries of internal affairs in the entities and the Brčko District Police, 2010 saw a decrease in the number of general crime cases compared to 2009. Data from the RS Ministry of Internal Affairs shows 7,170 crime cases registered in first nine months, 13.7% less than in the same period the previous year. 72% of the overall number of recorded crime cases has been resolved. Federal Police Administration data38, shows 16,890 crime cases recorded during first nine months. 62.7% of these have been resolved. Also worth mentioning are the 553 crimes registered in Brčko District during first six month in 2010, 341 out of which were resolved.

Numerous police activities were recorded in 2010 intended to suppress the illegal production and trafficking of drugs. Accor-ding to data from the RS ministry,39, 163 such crimes were solved in the first 9 month of 2010, compared to 146 from the same period in 2009. Thus we can say that the number of these crime cases is 11.6% higher, the number of reports filed was 19.4% higher while the number of persons against whom the reports were filed was 77.2% higher. At the same time, there were 244 cases of illegal manufacturing and trafficking of drugs registered in the FBiH, and 260 persons against whom reports were filed. 116 of these were repeat offenders and two of them juveniles. Substantial quantities of narcotics and drugs were seized in police actions.

36 United Nations Security Council, Report of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the activities of the European Union military mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (S/2010/510), UN, New York, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/MMAH-8AN5KG?OpenDocument, 5 October, 2010

37 United Nations Security Council, Thirty-eighth report of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina (S/2010/575), UN, New York, http://www.reliefweb.int:80/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/MUMA-8BQ5J4?OpenDocument, November 8, 2010.

38 Federal Police Administration (2010), Stanje kriminaliteta za prvih devet mjeseci 2010. godine, Sarajevo

39 Ministry of Internal Afairs of Republika Srpske (2010), Izvještaj o stanju bezbjednosti (januar-septembar 2010. godine, Banja Luka

74



During first 9 month in 2010, ten deaths that could be directly or indirectly linked to the abuse of drugs were registered. In addition, Brčko District Police arrested several dozen persons and seized significant amounts of drugs.40

Considering property crime, there were different trends in the two entities and in Brčko District. During first nine month of 2010, 4,645 thefts were reported to the RS Ministry. In comparison to the same period in 2009, the number of these crimes dropped by 15.9%, the number of reports made dropped 16.1% while the number of persons against whom reports were filed rose by 8%. At the same time the number of cases of crime against property in the first nine months in 2010 was 10,844, meaning 64.2% of the total number of crime cases. This is an increase of 557 of such crimes (5.4%) compared to the same period in 2009. When it comes to Brčko District, the number of thefts for the first six months in 2010 is higher than the half-year average in 2009.

Car thefts continued, in spite of the central motor vehicles registry and the new registration mode. During the first nine month in 2010, 143 car thefts were reported in the RS, a drop by 35.3% compared to the same period last year when 221 car thefts were reported. In 2010, this number did not change in Brčko District in comparison to the same period last year – 11 vehicles were reported stolen. At the same time, 1,029 motor vehicles were stolen during the first nine month of 2010, 17 or 1.6% more than during the same period in 2009.

40 Brčko District Police (2010), Izvještaj o stanju bezbjednosti za prvih šest mjeseci 2010. godine u Brčko Distriktu, Brčko District.

Table 7.1 Number of vehicles stolen in FBiH during the first nine month in 2010

Vehicle type Number of stolen vehicles

Volkswagen 613

Skoda 144

Audi 80

Renault 50

BMW 38

Mercedes 27

Peugeot 11

Opel 8

Fiat 5

Nissan 4

Hyundai 3

Citroen 2

Other types 44

TOTAL 1029

Source: Federal Police Administration (Stanje kriminaliteta za devet mjeseci 2010. godine), October 2010

during first 9 month

in 2010, ten deaths

that could be directly

or indirectly linked

to the abuse of drugs

were registered.

in addition, Brčko

district Police

arrested several

dozen persons and

seized significant

amounts of drugs.

75



Taking into account our previous reports and the identification of a worrying increase in juvenile delinquency (for example, the murder of Denis Mrnjavac, the setting on fire of an old woman in Sarajevo, frequent aggravated thefts, etc.), the fact that the first nine months of 2010 saw a drop in the number of crimes committed by juveniles is encoura-ging. In the first nine months in 2010, 900 crimes committed by juveniles were registered, a drop of 7.4% in comparison to the same period in 2009. The number of juvenile perpetrators of criminal activities in the RS, in first nine months in 2010 was 522, 14.7% less (612) in comparison to the same period in 2009.

Despite the fact that the overall security situation is improving the situation regarding family violence is of concern. 2010 saw no improvement in this regard. The number of reported cases of family violence remained the same during the first nine months in 2010 compared to the same period in 2009 in the RS, while in the FBiH it increased by 11.3. These are of course only the reported cases – it is likely that the number of actual cases is much higher.

7.4 Perceptions of personal security

Table 7.2 During the past three months have you, a family member or your family as a whole suffered... (%)


Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

A burglary at home 0.92 2.33 2.03 1.45 3.67 2.42 0.50 1.74 2.82

A burglary at the business premises

0.49 0.47 0.82 0.63 0.60 1.23 0.33 0.30 0.32

Wallet being stolen 1.76 3.83 2.24 2.34 5.23 2.92 0.99 2.03 1.56

Car theft 0.22 0.99 0.87 0.38 1.71 1.03 0.75

Theft of any other valuables...

1.79 2.85 3.86 1.57 3.99 4.88 1.42 1.02 2.43 12.52 4.73 3.16

Source: Public opinion poll conducted by Prism Research, November 2010

Looking at the results of the opinion poll, the number of respondents who were burgled dropped slightly from 2.3% to 2.0%. The poll also indicates a downward trend in terms of car theft. Home burglaries and car theft appear to be more frequent among rural residents than among the urban population. In terms of gender differences, more women repor-ted themselves as victims of pick pocketing than men.

If we analyze the data by age groups, the elderly populations are more often victims of theft. Respondents from the 18 to 35 age group are most frequently victims of car thefts while those between 36 and 50 are most often victims of burglaries of their business premises.

A positive trend can be seen in Graph 7.2 below where the number of people seeking police intervention in 2010 dro-pped from 8.2% to 5.2%.

Looking at the

results of the opinion

poll, the number

of respondents

who were burgled

dropped slightly

from 2.3% to 2.0%.

76



Opinions on the quality of police interventions, when sought, are not so positive, suggesting room for improvement in those services.

Only 37% of respondents in the FBiH and 51% of respondents in the RS were satisfied by the response of police to requests for intervention. Indeed, 63% of respondents in the FBiH, 49% in the RS, and 100 % in Brčko District were dis-satisfied. When disaggregated, there were very few differences in the rates of dissatisfaction; respondents from Bosniak majority areas and those between the ages of 36 to50 were slightly more dissatisfied than others.

The poll also monitors the opinion of respondents who have been taken into police custody (police stations) without a warrant. According to the results of the poll in 2010 the number of persons in BiH who have been taken to the police station without a warrant decreased (see Table 7.3 below). This decrease occurred in the FBiH and in Brčko District but not in the RS, where the number actually grew.

Graph 7.2. Percentage of persons who recently sought police intervention

BiH

8.04

5.18

FBiH

10.73

6.70

RS

4.213.10

Brčko District

5.64

3.71

Did you or any member of your family seek police intervention for any reason in the last 3 months? (%)

Nov 10Nov 09

Table 7.3 During the past three months have you or a close family member been taken to the police station without a warrant? (%)


Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10

Yes 1.23 0.85 1.90 0.99 0.18 0.57 1.88 1.29

No 97.44 98.08 96.27 98.00 99.28 98.21 96.24 98.16

DK/NA 1.33 1.07 1.84 1.02 0.55 1.22 1.88 0.55

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


77



7.5 Corruption – An ongoing concern

According to the EU 2010 Progress Report on BiH, the country achieved limited progress in resolving the issue of corruption that is still largely present in both public and private sectors. It affects the judiciary, the tax and customs administration, public procurement and privatization processes.

The implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy 2009-2014 did commence, however, and the Law on Corruption Prevention and the Anti-Corruption Coordination Agency was adopted. The latter entered into force and provides for the establishment of an independent agency. As such, one of the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recom-mendations is being met. An acting director has been appointed to manage the Agency until the appointment of a permanent director and the first draft of Agency’s Rulebook was developed. While premises have been found for the offices of the agency it is not yet staffed.

In terms of other GRECO recommendations, BiH had presently fulfilled four of 16. The Criminal Code was amended with regard to the management of seized/confiscated assets. However, BiH has not yet fulfilled the necessary requirements to be able to participate in the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions - a prerequisite of acce-ssion to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.

Also notable is the absence of efficient investigations into, prosecutions of and judgments on corruption at a high level. Corruption is usually approached within the framework of regulations on the abuse of office, and at the entity level. There are ongoing investigations of a number of high profile cases in which high level politicians and civil servants are involved. One case, for example, involves the misuse of office. It ended in acquittal. The judicial coverage of corruption cases is still slow and in spite of police and prosecutors having special investigative powers available, these are rarely used in corruption cases. The staff working with corruption cases is not trained sufficiently to lead financial investiga-tions for example. Cooperation between the police and the prosecutors needs to be improved in order to improve the efficient prosecution of these cases.

The EWS poll also inquires into the issue of corruption. The attitudes of respondents on the presence of corruption in terms of bribery or the abuse of office for private purposes in the police forces and judiciary serve as basis of indications of the presence of corruption within these institutions (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4 How widespread do you think corruption, that is bribery or abuse of office for private purposes, is in these institutions? (%)



POLI

CE

Not at all 2.68 2.67 1.85 3.72 2.77 1.21 18.06 1.30

Not much 14.35 14.35 14.09 11.22 12.57 16.63 41.47 31.49

To some degree 19.61 24.78 18.38 25.56 21.42 23.02 22.28 27.84

Fairly 26.13 32.96 21.04 33.24 35.59 34.64 11.92 19.67

Very 37.22 25.23 44.64 26.25 27.66 24.49 6.27 19.70

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

JUD

ICIA

RY

Not at all 1.90 3.75 1,39 4.57 1.32 2.74 18.86 1.84

Not much 13.22 11.82 10,76 8.64 13.78 14.69 54.49 25.75

To some degree 17.63 26.14 16,87 26.98 19.28 22.43 12.66 40.75

Fairly 25.67 31.70 21.56 31.11 33.56 35.46 11.79 14.34

Very 41.58 26.58 49.42 28.70 32.05 24.67 2.20 17.32

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


corruption is still

largely present in

both public and

private sectors. it

affects the judiciary,

the tax and customs

administration,

public procurement

and privatization

processes.

78



According to the data from November 2010, 25.2% of respondents believe corruption is very present in the police and 26.6% believe it is very present in the judiciary. It is notable that the number of respondents sharing such an opinion is higher in the FBiH in comparison to Brčko District, but not significantly, however. In addition, attitudes were far more positive, in comparison to November 2009, in terms of perceptions of bribery and the abuse of office for private pur-poses. More active involvement of national and international stakeholders, complemented by the full implementation of mechanisms defined by legislation (application of the Criminal Code, full capacity of the Corruption Prevention and Anti-Corruption Coordination Agency, the work of law-enforcement agencies, the role of civil society and the media) would, most certainly, lead to further improvements in this field.

7.6 Perceptions of police activities improve

The opinion poll data indicates that police are, to a greater degree than previously, working to the benefit of citizens. According to data from the November 2010 poll, the number of respondents supporting the work of the police in BiH was 72.5 %. Comparing this data by entity, respondents were more positive towards the work of the police in the RS where 78.4 % approve of their work in comparison to the FBiH where approval is at 67.0%. The most satisfied with the work of the police were respondents from Brčko District, with 88.7% of them citing their approval.

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Graph 7.3. Satisfaction with the police

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.0010.00

30.00

50.00

70.00

90.00

0.00

BiH

72.51

FBiH

67.01

RS

78.4088.69

Brčko District

% of sample who generally approve of the work of the police

If we look at perceptions of corruption in the judiciary, it appears as though this institution is lagging behind in compa-rison to the police. Despite a significant increase in number of people supporting the work of judiciary, in comparison to 2009, approval of the judiciary in the 2010 poll was still lower than the number of respondents who cited favourably the work of police.

According to the poll results from 2010, 66.5% of respondents supported the work of the judiciary in BiH. Comparing the data by entities, respondents from the RS had a more positive attitude towards the judiciary, with 69.0% suppor-ting their work, in comparison to the FBiH where the figure is 62.6%. The most satisfied with the work of judiciary are respondents from Brčko District, with 89.8% of them approving of the work of judiciary.

according to the

data from November

2010, 25.2% of

respondents believe

corruption is very

present in the police

and 26.6% believe it

is very present in the

judiciary.

79



Finally, the poll results reveal that some 3% of respondents in BiH were either exposed themselves or have witnessed a situation in which police overstepped their powers. The results were somewhat worse in the RS at 5%, compared to the FBiH (2%) and Brčko District where no such cases were reported.

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Graph 7.4: Satisfaction with the judiciary

100.00

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

BiH

66.53

FBiH

62.60

RS

68.99

89.79

Brčko District

% of sample who generally approve of the work of the judiciary

Table 7.5 During the past six months have you experienced or witnessed a situation where the police clearly abused their authorities (i.e. dealing with traffic, regulating public protests, in an investigation, etc.) (%)



Yes 13.28 3.04 11.55 2.06 16.84 4.96

No 81.94 95.66 86.46 97.20 74.14 92.90 96.24 98.71

DK/NA 4.78 1.30 1.99 0.74 9.02 2.14 3.76 1.29

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


80



7.7. Summary

The Security Stability Index from November 2010 saw no change in comparison to November 2009. International re-ports on the security situation in BiH confirmed this level of stability.

In 2010, there was a fall in a number of general crime cases which likely had a positive impact on the overall security situation. Positive effects in terms of public security were seen in activities related to the prevention of illegal manufac-turing and trafficking of drugs, criminal activities against property (thefts), car thefts and juvenile delinquency. Official data on these public security issues were confirmed by the opinions expressed by respondents to the EWS opinion poll

Despite these positive developments in the overall stability situation, the opinion poll data from 2010 suggests that a significant proportion of the population perceive corruption to be present in the activities of some of the key instituti-ons in the country such as the police and the judiciary. Some progress was made in setting up the necessary institutions for tacking this problem but more will need to be done in terms of staffing to make them functional.

81



aNNEx 1:

data tables

All

Gender

Respondents

Male

Female

Nov

08.

Nov

09.

Nov

10.

Nov

08.

Nov

09.

Nov

10.

Nov

08.

Nov

09.

Nov

10.

%%

%%

%%

%%

%

U pravcu pogoršanja

63,475,0

51,863,8

76,854,1

63,073,1

49,6

U pravcu poboljšanja

25,016,5

37,826,9

15,136,6

23,117,9

38,9

NZ/BO

11,78,5

10,49,3

8,19,3

13,98,9

11,5

Total

100,0100,0

100,0100,0

100,0100,0

100,0100,0

100,0

82

E a r L y W a r N i N G S y S t E m 2 0 1 0 // d a t a t a B L E S

RespondentsAll

Gender

Male Female

Nov08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

Worse 63.4 75.0 51.8 63.8 76.8 54.1 63.0 73.1 49.6

Better 25.0 16.5 37.8 26.9 15.1 36.6 23.1 17.9 38.9

DK/NA 11.7 8.5 10.4 9.3 8.1 9.3 13.9 8.9 11.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

*Source: Public opinion poll conducted for this project by Prism Research, November 2010

Table 1.1a

In which direction would you say Bosnia and Herzegovina is headed, given the current political situation?

Table 1.1b


Table 1.2


Respondents

Rural Urban FBiH RS Brčko District

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Worse 59.6 76.0 49.6 68.5 73.6 54.9 74.3 86.3 49.2 50.3 62.9 60.1 10.4 9.6 22.8

Better 26.6 17.7 40.2 22.8 15.0 34.4 15.8 8.1 45.1 34.6 24.2 21.9 89.6 82.3 70.1

DK/NA 13.9 6.2 10.2 8.8 11.4 10.7 10.0 5.6 5.7 15.1 12.9 18.0 8.0 7.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Respondents

Bosniak majority Croat majority Serb majority

Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

Towards deterioration

79.7 90.5 46.6 52.9 70.5 54.8 50.3 62.9 60.1

Towards improvement

13.5 6.0 48.9 24.7 15.9 36.9 34.6 24.2 21.9

DK/NA 6.8 3.4 4.5 22.4 13.5 8.3 15.1 12.9 18.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


a1. Political Stability and institutional confidence

83


Respondents

All Bosniak majority Croat majority Serb majority

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % %

Very poor 29.1 42.2 24.4 37.3 47.0 25.2 12.0 27.8 36.5 24.4 17.5

Generally poor 36.6 38.3 37.2 40.3 36.4 38.2 23.1 47.1 31.2 37.9 37.9

Neither poor nor good 29.8 17.7 34.0 21.3 15.4 32.6 46.8 20.6 25.9 35.4 41.2

Generally good 2.9 1.1 2.2 1.2 3.0 16.2 0.7 2.9 0.6 0.4

Very good 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4

DK/NA 1.3 0.8 2.1 0.9 0.8 1.6 3.7 3.6 1.6 3.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL POOR 65.7 80.5 61.6 77.6 83.5 63.3 35.0 74.9 67.6 62.3 55.3

Neither poor nor good 29.8 17.7 34.0 21.3 15.4 32.6 46.8 20.6 25.9 35.4 41.2

TOTAL good 3.3 1.1 2.4 0.2 1.2 3.3 16.6 0.7 2.9 0.6 0.4

DK/NA 1.3 0.8 2.1 0.9 0.8 1.6 3.7 3.6 1.6 3.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.4a

Would you leave Bosnia and Herzegovina to live in another country, if opportunity arose?

Table 1.3

How would you describe the economic situation Bosnia and Herzegovina is in?

Respondents

AllAge Gender

18 - 35 36 - 50 51 + Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Yes 40.4 44.0 47.3 63.3 66.5 67.1 39.4 51.9 56.6 17.6 22.2 20.8 43.3 45.3 49.8 37.6 42.7 45.0

No 46.3 49.4 44.6 19.2 27.7 22.2 48.9 39.0 37.1 72.2 71.8 72.4 45.9 48.1 43.8 46.7 50.6 45.3

DK/NA 13.3 6.6 8.1 17.5 5.7 10.8 11.7 9.0 6.3 10.2 6.0 6.8 10.8 6.6 6.4 15.7 6.6 9.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


84


Respondents



% % % % % % % % %

Yes 39.2 56.3 41.7 43.4 36.4 56.8 41.6 32.7 49.2

No 44.8 36.4 50.8 43.2 51.1 33.1 47.6 63.2 41.8

DK/NA 15.9 7.3 7.5 13.5 12.5 10.0 10.8 4.1 9.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.5


Table 1.6

All things considered, would you say that Bosnia and Herzegovina will benefit from membership of the European Union?

Respondents

Bosniak majority Croat majority Serb majority Brčko District


% % % % % % % %

Yes 86.7 79.3 67.6 70.8 74.5 51.6 77.7 86.9

No 5.2 13.6 15.3 22.5 12.5 29.7 10.2 6.9

Don’t know/does not want to answer

8.1 7.0 17.0 6.7 12.9 18.6 12.1 6.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.4b


Respondents

Rural Urban FBiH RS Brčko District

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % %

Yes 41.0 44.3 44.8 39.6 43.7 50.8 40.1 52.1 46.5 41.6 32.7 49.2 28.6 34.2 43.4

No 49.0 50.0 48.3 42.6 48.6 39.3 44.5 39.5 45.2 47.6 63.2 41.8 68.1 62.1 56.6

DK/NA 10.0 5.8 6.9 17.8 7.7 9.9 15.4 8.4 8.3 10.8 4.1 9.0 3.3 3.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


85


Respondents


Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % %

DNZ BiH-Demokratska narodna zajednica BiH

.1 .2 .1 .2 .5 .1 .2

Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu 3.2 1.2 1.0 6.8 1.7 2.1 2.8

SDA-Stranka demokratske akcije

8.8 7.2 8.1 17.6 15.2 20.5 3.5

Stranka penzionera-umirovljenika BiH

1.0 2.0

SPD-Socijaldemokratska partija BiH-Socijaldemokrati

11.9 9.2 16.8 23.6 18.9 39.4 1.0 .7 3.8 .5

Penzionerska stranka RS .1 .2

DNS-Demokratski narodni savez

.9 .1 .0 2.4 .2

SDS-Srpska demokratska stranka

4.1 1.7 2.8 .3 10.1 3.6 7.5

Srpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav Seselj

.2 .6

PDP RS-Partija demokratskog progresa Republike Srpske

.6 .1 1.0 1.5 .4 2.7

Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata-SNSD Milorad Dodik

12.7 14.3 17.5 .4 31.6 34.8 44.6

Socijalisticka partija .3 .8

Narodna stranka "Radom za boljitak"

1.1 .7 .7 1.7 .6 1.5 3.1 3.7 .2

HDZ-Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH

4.3 3.9 4.9 .7 33.0 28.7 27.3 .2

SBBBiH - Savez za bolju budućnost BiH - Fahrudin Radončić

1.2 2.7 2.6 6.6

DP - Demokratska partija - Dragan Čavić

.9 .1 2.2 .3

Some other party .1 .3 .2 1.1 .8 .2

Would not vote 16.5 12.9 12.3 9.6 20.2 17.8 19.6 13.6

None 25.0 22.5 11.4 28.5 29.7 8.0 36.5 23.8 9.7 16.2 14.6 16.4

Don't know/cannot decide 7.0 19.4 11.2 6.1 16.3 8.8 6.2 17.7 11.1 8.8 24.5 13.5

No answer/don't want to answer

17.2 .2 11.7 .4 7.6 .2 27.9

Naša stranka .4 .0 .1 .7 .4 .8 .3

Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske

.2 .2 .3

Table1.7a

If a general election were held this week, what party would you be most likely to vote for, regardless of the level of government in question?

86


Respondents


Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % %

Građanska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine

.1 .3

BSP-Bosansko-hercegovacka stranka prava

.1 .2 .1 .6

Hrvatska stranka prava Bosne i Hercegovine-Đapić dr. Jurišić

.3 1.4 .2 2.2 7.4

Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990

.6 .1 5.1 4.8 1.0 22.9

BOSS-Bosanska stranka .2 .1 .1 .4 .2 .2

SDU BiH-Socijaldemokratska unija Bosne i Hercegovine

.0 .1 .1

BPS-Sefer Halilovic .1 1.3 .2 1.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


FBiH RS

Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

% % % % % %

DNZ BiH-Demokratska narodna zajednica BiH .2 .4 .1

Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu 5.4 1.9 1.4

SDA-Stranka demokratske akcije 14.7 12.0 14.0

Stranka penzionera-umirovljenika BiH 1.6

SPD-Socijaldemokratska partija BiH-Socijaldemokrati 19.0 15.0 28.2 .5

Penzionerska stranka RS .2

DNS-Demokratski narodni savez 2.4 .2

SDS-Srpska demokratska stranka .3 10.1 3.6 7.5

Srpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav Seselj .6

PDP RS-Partija demokratskog progresa Republike Srpske 1.5 .4 2.7

Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata-SNSD Milorad Dodik .3 31.6 34.8 44.6

Socijalisticka partija .8

Narodna stranka "Radom za boljitak" 1.9 1.3 1.0 .2

HDZ-Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH 6.7 6.7 8.6 .2

SBBBiH - Savez za bolju budućnost BiH - Fahrudin Radončić 2.1 4.5

DP - Demokratska partija - Dragan Čavić 2.2 .3

Table 1.7b

If a general election were held this week, what party would you be most likely to vote for, regardless of the level of government in question?

87


FBiH RS


% % % % % %

Some other party .2 .3 .2

Would not vote 14.0 12.2 19.6 13.6

None 30.2 28.4 8.5 16.2 14.6 16.4

Don't know/cannot decide 6.1 16.6 9.5 8.8 24.5 13.5

No answer/don't want to answer 10.8 .3 27.9

Naša stranka .7 .1 .2

Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske .2 .3

Građanska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine .2

BSP-Bosansko-hercegovacka stranka prava .1 .4

Hrvatska stranka prava Bosne i Hercegovine-Đapić dr. Jurišić .5 2.5

Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 1.0 .2 7.2

BOSS-Bosanska stranka .3 .2 .1

SDU BiH-Socijaldemokratska unija Bosne i Hercegovine .1

BPS-Sefer Halilovic .2 1.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Respondents



% % % % % % % %

Absolutely disagree 46.7 30.0 64.5 44.2 30.5 16.1 30.4 23.0

Mainly disagree 28.4 30.1 19.4 29.9 30.4 6.9 37.4 36.5

Mainly agree 14.7 24.7 9.1 15.3 18.0 47.8 21.2 25.1

Absolutely agree 3.7 10.2 3.6 7.4 4.9 29.2 3.6 5.3

DK/NA 6.5 5.0 3.4 3.2 16.1 7.4 10.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL DISAGREE 75.1 60.1 83.8 74.1 60.9 23.0 67.8 59.6

TOTAL AGREE 18.4 34.9 12.7 22.6 22.9 77.0 24.8 30.4

DK/NA 6.5 5.0 3.4 3.2 16.1 7.4 10.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.8

Some are saying that only the national (ethnic) parties or parties carrying a national (ethnic) trademark in BiH can provide for the protection of national interests of the people(s) they represent. How much do you agree or disagree with this statement?

88


Survey wave Chain index Composite index

Feb 05 100.00 54

Jun 05 96.30 52

Sep 05 94.23 49

Nov 05 110.20 54

Apr 06 100.00 54

Jun 06 100.00 54

Sep 06 96.30 52

Nov 06 107.69 56

Apr 07 92.86 52

Sep 07 103.85 54

Nov 07 96.30 52

Mar 08 101.92 53

Jun 08 90.57 48

Oct 08 104.17 50

Nov 08 102.00 51

Nov 09 92.16 47

Nov 10 119.15 56


Table 1.9

Political Stability Index for BiH

89


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

Presidency of BiH Yes 40.4 32.5 55.3 42.7 33.1 51.7 38.2 31.9 58.7

No 39.1 50.2 33.4 36.7 50.5 37.7 41.4 49.8 29.3

Not applicable 1.5 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.6 .9

Neither approves nor disapproves

8.4 13.5 8.7 8.9 13.1 8.6 8.0 13.9 8.7

DK/NA 12.0 2.4 1.6 11.6 1.9 .7 12.4 2.8 2.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Parliamentary Assembly of BiH

Yes 41.2 31.3 51.5 42.8 32.1 48.3 39.7 30.5 54.4

No 38.1 51.7 37.7 36.4 51.7 41.9 39.7 51.7 33.7

Not applicable 0.6 .5 0.6 .4 0.6 .6


8.5 13.8 8.7 8.8 13.3 8.7 8.2 14.3 8.7

DK/NA 12.2 2.6 1.6 12.0 2.2 .5 12.4 3.0 2.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Council of Ministers of BiH

Yes 41.3 32.0 50.0 43.6 32.6 46.5 39.1 31.4 53.3

No 38.2 50.6 39.9 36.0 50.4 43.6 40.3 50.8 36.5

Not applicable 0.8 .1 1.1 .1 0.5 .1


8.5 14.2 7.9 8.7 13.7 8.4 8.2 14.8 7.5

DK/NA 12.0 2.4 2.0 11.7 2.3 1.4 12.3 2.5 2.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Parliament of the Federation of BiH

Yes 37.8 28.7 47.0 39.8 29.0 43.2 35.9 28.5 50.6

No 41.0 53.4 41.4 39.4 53.0 45.0 42.5 53.8 37.8

Not applicable 0.6 .4 0.7 .8 0.5


9.0 14.5 9.1 9.1 15.2 9.6 8.9 13.9 8.7

DK/NA 12.2 2.7 2.1 11.7 2.1 1.3 12.7 3.3 2.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Government of the Federation of BiH

Yes 39.1 29.5 46.4 42.1 30.8 42.8 36.2 28.2 49.9

No 40.2 53.2 41.8 37.6 52.2 45.7 42.6 54.3 38.1

Not applicable 0.6 .3 0.9 .7 0.4


8.7 13.8 9.2 8.8 14.3 9.2 8.7 13.3 9.3

Table 1.10a

Do you approve of the job being done by...?

90


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

DK/NA 12.0 2.8 2.3 11.6 1.9 1.7 12.4 3.7 2.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

National Assembly of RS

Yes 40.2 32.4 42.0 44.6 35.0 40.9 36.1 29.8 43.2

No 39.7 52.8 44.8 35.0 51.3 46.8 44.1 54.3 42.9

Not applicable 0.4 .3 0.4 .4 0.5 .2


8.2 11.7 10.2 9.7 11.1 10.7 6.8 12.4 9.8

DK/NA 11.9 2.6 2.6 10.7 2.2 1.2 13.0 3.0 4.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Government of RS Yes 40.3 33.7 43.1 44.5 37.0 42.3 36.3 30.5 43.8

No 39.6 52.1 43.9 34.7 50.3 44.7 44.3 53.8 43.1

Not applicable 0.4 .4 0.4 .5 0.5 .3


8.1 11.3 9.9 9.7 10.3 10.9 6.7 12.2 8.9

DK/NA 11.9 2.5 2.8 11.1 2.0 1.6 12.7 2.9 3.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Municipal authorities

Yes 55.5 39.1 59.0 59.0 41.2 56.5 52.2 37.1 61.3

No 25.0 45.3 30.6 21.1 43.1 32.4 28.7 47.4 28.9

Not applicable 0.2 0.3 0.2


7.2 12.9 9.0 7.7 12.9 10.5 6.7 13.0 7.7

DK/NA 12.3 2.4 1.4 12.2 2.5 .6 12.4 2.4 2.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Cantonal authorities in the Federation of BiH

Yes 38.6 19.3 48.8 42.0 19.6 45.1 35.4 19.0 52.3

No 38.3 63.9 42.6 35.0 64.0 46.7 41.3 63.7 38.7



6.1 13.6 7.7 6.7 13.4 8.0 5.6 13.9 7.5

DK/NA 17.0 3.0 .9 16.3 2.9 .2 17.7 3.1 1.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OSCE Yes 48.0 51.0 56.3 52.2 49.6 52.7 43.9 52.4 59.8

No 26.3 29.9 28.9 24.3 30.8 32.1 28.1 29.1 25.8

91


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

Not applicable 0.6 .1 0.6 .1 0.5 .1


10.4 14.7 8.9 9.8 15.2 8.8 11.0 14.3 9.0

DK/NA 15.4 3.7 5.8 13.7 3.9 6.3 16.9 3.6 5.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OHR Yes 45.6 51.3 52.4 47.7 49.6 49.1 43.6 53.0 55.5

No 29.6 31.6 33.6 28.9 32.9 37.6 30.4 30.4 29.8

Not applicable 0.8 .4 1.0 .7 0.5 .2


11.2 12.8 8.7 10.4 12.5 8.8 11.9 13.0 8.6

DK/NA 13.6 3.5 4.9 13.0 4.0 3.8 14.1 3.0 5.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

UNDP Yes 50.5 52.4 58.6 55.0 51.5 56.0 46.2 53.3 61.2

No 22.9 27.5 25.4 21.2 28.0 26.8 24.5 27.0 24.0

Not applicable 0.6 .2 0.9 .4 0.4 .1


10.7 14.6 9.5 9.5 14.3 10.9 11.9 14.9 8.2

DK/NA 15.9 4.9 6.3 14.3 5.3 5.9 17.4 4.4 6.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EUPM Yes 47.2 53.8 55.9 49.8 51.7 53.6 44.7 55.7 58.2

No 27.5 28.5 27.8 27.1 30.2 30.0 28.0 26.8 25.7

Not applicable 0.6 .5 0.7 .6 0.4 .4


10.7 13.2 10.4 9.9 12.5 12.0 11.5 13.9 9.0

DK/NA 14.6 4.0 5.4 13.3 4.9 3.9 15.9 3.2 6.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EU Yes 47.7 50.6 65.2 53.3 52.0 63.7 42.4 49.2 66.6

No 24.5 29.3 24.6 22.5 30.1 26.5 26.5 28.6 22.9

Not applicable 0.8 .1 0.8 .1 0.8 .1


10.4 12.9 7.3 9.5 11.8 7.9 11.2 14.0 6.6

DK/NA 17.4 6.3 2.8 14.7 5.3 1.8 19.9 7.4 3.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

USA Yes 38.7 45.3 49.9 41.9 45.9 47.4 35.7 44.8 52.2

92


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

No 35.2 35.7 37.0 35.2 36.5 41.2 35.1 35.0 33.0

Not applicable 0.9 .3 1.0 .1 0.9 .5


11.2 14.2 8.7 9.7 12.4 8.9 12.8 16.1 8.4

DK/NA 14.9 3.8 4.1 13.2 4.3 2.3 16.5 3.2 5.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Yes 47.7 48.5 55.5 53.2 50.2 53.5 42.5 46.8 57.4

No 23.4 28.2 28.9 21.3 28.8 30.7 25.4 27.6 27.1

Not applicable 0.7 .2 0.9 .1 0.6 .2


10.8 14.9 9.5 9.8 13.2 11.0 11.9 16.7 8.0

DK/NA 18.0 7.6 6.0 15.7 7.0 4.6 20.2 8.2 7.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Respondents

FBiH RS Brčko District

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

OHR Yes 52.1 60.1 59.0 32.5 35.4 38.7 95.9 88.6 77.4

No 20.6 21.8 28.6 45.1 48.5 43.3 2.1 2.4 18.9



11.5 12.7 7.5 11.4 13.5 11.3 5.2 3.7

DK/NA 15.8 4.4 4.1 11.0 2.2 6.8 2.1 3.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.10b


93



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

Presidency of BiH Yes 31.4 14.8 48.6 34.5 34.1 35.9 49.5 48.9 65.3

No 52.1 68.9 40.4 22.6 40.6 52.7 30.8 33.8 21.4

Not applicable 2.7 2.8 1.4 0.2


5.0 12.1 7.0 16.7 17.3 11.3 10.6 14.9 10.3

DK/NA 11.5 1.5 1.1 26.2 6.5 9.1 2.1 3.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Yes 32.1 14.8 46.8 33.5 30.8 27.6 51.2 47.7 61.6

No 51.7 71.6 44.1 23.7 41.5 63.8 28.3 33.9 23.4



4.4 11.5 7.1 17.4 18.4 8.0 11.1 15.7 11.9

DK/NA 11.8 1.3 .7 25.4 7.9 .6 9.4 2.4 3.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Council of Ministers of BiH

Yes 31.4 15.3 43.5 33.2 31.0 29.9 52.4 49.2 60.4

No 52.5 69.3 48.1 23.8 42.0 62.1 27.4 33.2 25.4

Not applicable 1.2 .3 1.4 0.2


4.3 12.9 7.3 18.2 18.1 4.9 11.1 15.4 11.2

DK/NA 11.8 1.3 .8 24.7 7.5 3.1 9.1 2.0 3.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Yes 28.9 15.7 45.4 31.8 28.0 28.9 47.8 42.3 53.3

No 55.3 70.0 45.6 25.2 45.6 66.2 29.9 37.5 27.8

Not applicable 0.7 .1 1.4 0.3 1.0


4.4 11.8 7.4 18.3 17.6 4.9 12.2 17.5 13.7

DK/NA 11.4 1.8 1.4 24.7 7.4 10.1 2.4 4.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Yes 30.5 14.6 43.4 32.4 26.9 27.6 48.8 45.1 54.1

No 54.2 71.3 47.6 25.0 46.9 67.5 29.2 35.6 26.7

Not applicable 0.7 .4 1.2 0.5 .5

Table 1.11


94



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %


3.9 11.8 6.9 19.0 17.8 4.9 12.0 15.9 14.5

DK/NA 11.4 1.6 1.7 23.6 7.2 9.9 2.9 4.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

National Assembly of RS

Yes 19.1 9.0 22.8 16.9 11.1 16.8 71.6 63.6 73.7

No 62.4 79.0 63.8 38.1 62.7 67.5 12.8 21.3 12.8



4.6 9.7 9.1 20.8 17.9 13.6 9.2 12.8 11.2

DK/NA 13.9 1.6 3.7 24.3 7.8 2.0 6.4 2.1 2.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Government of RS Yes 18.9 9.0 23.8 17.3 12.3 16.8 71.9 66.7 75.5

No 63.0 78.9 63.2 37.4 61.6 66.2 12.1 19.8 11.7

Not applicable 0.8 .6 0.4 0.1 .4


4.6 9.5 9.1 19.8 17.9 15.0 9.3 11.8 9.6

DK/NA 13.4 1.8 3.3 25.5 7.8 2.0 6.7 1.6 2.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Municipal authorities Yes 47.1 18.2 49.3 35.6 25.8 39.5 69.0 64.7 73.8

No 36.3 67.5 40.7 21.6 45.7 52.5 13.9 21.6 12.7

Not applicable 1.0 0.3


3.8 12.7 8.8 18.5 20.1 7.7 8.2 11.9 11.1

DK/NA 12.8 1.6 1.2 24.4 7.5 .2 8.8 1.5 2.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Cantonal authorities in the Federation of BiH

Yes 40.1 17.1 51.5 32.7 27.3 43.0

No 42.2 69.1 38.9 23.0 44.3 50.6

Not applicable 0.8


3.2 12.1 8.4 17.4 19.4 6.4

DK/NA 14.5 1.7 1.3 26.8 8.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OSCE Yes 54.7 56.2 71.7 38.2 46.2 40.0 39.8 43.7 45.2

No 23.1 24.2 14.8 18.1 29.3 53.0 34.2 38.8 34.1

95



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %



7.2 15.5 7.4 20.6 14.3 7.0 11.9 14.8 12.1

DK/NA 15.0 3.3 5.9 23.1 9.3 14.1 2.5 8.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OHR Yes 56.5 63.4 69.7 35.0 47.8 36.0 32.5 35.4 38.7

No 20.8 20.5 15.2 19.6 26.6 57.6 45.1 48.5 43.3



9.0 11.7 8.0 21.5 16.1 6.4 11.4 13.5 11.3

DK/NA 13.7 3.2 6.0 23.8 8.8 11.0 2.2 6.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

UNDP Yes 58.4 60.9 70.3 37.8 44.2 47.6 41.8 42.3 48.9

No 17.9 19.3 14.1 17.8 29.3 43.9 31.9 38.3 31.1



7.4 13.7 7.4 19.0 14.3 7.9 12.9 16.4 12.2

DK/NA 16.3 5.1 7.5 25.3 11.1 .6 13.4 2.8 7.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EUPM Yes 56.6 64.9 72.5 36.4 51.2 38.0 36.0 38.9 44.0

No 20.5 20.2 12.6 18.8 25.3 52.2 40.3 41.0 34.7



7.5 10.9 6.6 20.9 13.7 9.2 12.1 16.3 15.5

DK/NA 15.4 3.3 7.0 23.8 9.0 .6 11.6 3.4 5.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EU Yes 53.8 59.5 83.7 37.1 49.5 34.8 40.6 37.9 57.0

No 19.0 21.0 8.8 17.8 25.4 60.4 34.7 42.1 26.7



7.5 10.9 4.3 19.4 14.1 4.9 11.8 15.6 12.3

DK/NA 19.8 7.3 2.8 25.7 10.2 12.9 4.2 3.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

USA Yes 46.7 53.3 64.6 34.4 43.8 34.4 27.2 33.4 38.8

No 29.3 28.2 22.3 19.0 28.9 58.0 48.9 48.7 44.7

96



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %



7.9 13.4 7.3 21.6 17.9 7.6 12.8 15.0 11.2

DK/NA 16.1 3.5 5.0 25.0 8.6 11.1 2.7 5.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


u 53.5 53.1 67.7 35.7 47.1 39.0 41.6 40.7 47.9

No 18.9 22.0 18.0 17.7 25.6 53.1 31.8 37.7 32.0



7.5 14.0 7.9 20.8 14.4 7.9 12.5 17.1 11.8

DK/NA 20.1 9.7 6.0 25.8 11.8 14.1 4.2 8.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


97


All Bosniak majority

Croat majority Serb majority

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % %

Central Bank of BiH

Very well 7.4 6.7 13.5 8.7 6.8 25.8 3.1 6.8 8.9 6.8 7.0 4.0

Well enough 33.1 35.5 36.4 25.2 43.3 43.7 26.8 35.0 37.9 42.7 24.1 22.6

Poorly 29.5 28.2 26.1 34.3 18.9 18.3 32.1 32.7 36.4 23.5 38.0 31.7

Very poorly 9.8 15.6 9.6 12.1 18.6 4.4 6.7 9.0 16.2 8.5 15.1 12.8


20.2 13.9 14.4 19.8 12.5 7.8 31.3 16.5 .6 18.5 15.7 28.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 40.5 42.3 49.9 33.8 50.0 69.5 29.9 41.8 46.8 49.5 31.2 26.6

TOTAL POOR 39.3 43.8 35.7 46.4 37.5 22.7 38.9 41.7 52.6 32.0 53.1 44.5

DK/NA 20.2 13.9 14.4 19.8 12.5 7.8 31.3 16.5 .6 18.5 15.7 28.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Indirect Taxation Authority of BiH

Very well 6.6 5.3 7.8 8.5 5.4 15.3 2.4 1.4 5.2 4.8 6.5 1.9

Well enough 32.6 26.4 31.0 23.4 29.0 41.9 25.8 21.9 22.7 44.9 22.9 21.3

Poorly 28.8 35.9 35.4 33.1 32.2 27.1 32.1 42.5 47.8 23.1 37.6 37.1

Very poorly 13.3 19.0 13.6 18.5 23.1 8.4 8.8 13.6 24.2 8.4 17.3 15.8


18.7 13.4 12.2 16.6 10.3 7.3 30.9 20.7 18.7 15.7 23.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 39.3 31.7 38.8 31.9 34.4 57.2 28.2 23.2 27.9 49.7 29.4 23.2

TOTAL POOR 42.0 54.9 49.0 51.6 55.3 35.5 40.8 56.0 72.1 31.5 54.9 52.9

DK/NA 18.7 13.4 12.2 16.6 10.3 7.3 30.9 20.7 18.7 15.7 23.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Entity tax administrations Very well 3.5 4.4 7.3 3.1 3.7 14.1 3.0 1.5 4.1 2.9 6.3 2.0

Well enough 29.5 24.4 28.6 23.4 21.6 37.3 23.7 17.8 23.4 37.3 28.2 22.7

Poorly 31.8 37.3 38.7 34.4 36.8 30.8 31.5 46.8 55.5 29.8 34.5 36.2

Very poorly 17.6 21.7 13.2 23.1 27.9 9.6 11.6 13.3 17.1 13.1 17.9 16.4


17.6 12.3 12.2 16.0 10.0 8.3 30.2 20.5 16.9 13.1 22.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL well 33.0 28.7 35.9 26.5 25.3 51.4 26.7 19.3 27.5 40.2 34.5 24.7

Table 1.12

How well do the following institutions do their jobs?

98




Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % %

TOTAL POOR 49.4 59.0 51.9 57.5 64.7 40.3 43.1 60.1 72.5 42.9 52.4 52.6

DK/NA 17.6 12.3 12.2 16.0 10.0 8.3 30.2 20.5 16.9 13.1 22.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Judicial system

Very well 5.3 3.2 7.0 6.1 1.0 13.2 2.3 1.2 2.8 4.1 6.4 1.0

Well enough 28.1 22.4 33.8 23.1 17.3 42.4 28.5 17.5 33.6 32.8 28.5 25.6

Poorly 25.4 36.0 34.6 27.1 33.6 27.9 26.1 47.5 43.9 23.6 34.7 38.0

Very poorly 10.9 28.2 15.4 15.4 40.0 11.2 5.3 18.5 18.2 7.3 18.6 17.3


30.2 10.2 9.2 28.3 8.0 5.3 37.8 15.2 1.4 32.2 11.8 18.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 33.4 25.6 40.8 29.2 18.3 55.6 30.8 18.7 36.4 36.9 34.8 26.7

TOTAL POOR 36.3 64.2 50.0 42.5 73.7 39.1 31.4 66.1 62.2 30.9 53.3 55.2

DK/NA 30.2 10.2 9.2 28.3 8.0 5.3 37.8 15.2 1.4 32.2 11.8 18.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Very well 4.4 4.7 7.1 5.1 4.9 12.5 2.5 1.4 4.1 3.0 5.6 1.8

Well enough 25.7 24.0 33.0 21.0 21.4 45.7 25.4 22.0 21.7 30.5 26.1 24.8

Poorly 24.7 34.3 27.7 25.5 32.4 21.7 24.0 39.6 55.2 24.2 34.9 23.7

Very poorly 12.4 21.4 13.7 18.6 26.9 7.6 6.6 14.9 17.5 7.1 17.4 16.8


32.8 15.7 18.5 29.9 14.4 12.5 41.5 22.2 1.6 35.3 16.0 32.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 30.0 28.7 40.1 26.0 26.2 58.2 27.9 23.3 25.7 33.4 31.7 26.7

TOTAL POOR 37.2 55.7 41.4 44.0 59.3 29.3 30.5 54.5 72.7 31.3 52.3 40.5

DK/NA 32.8 15.7 18.5 29.9 14.4 12.5 41.5 22.2 1.6 35.3 16.0 32.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

FIPA – Foreign Investments Promotion Agency

Very well 2.3 5.0 5.3 2.0 5.3 9.3 2.3 2.7 4.1 2.0 5.6 1.2

Well enough 15.7 22.9 28.5 11.4 20.6 41.2 17.0 21.7 25.0 19.2 25.1 17.1

Poorly 31.5 31.9 27.1 30.2 29.6 20.8 31.1 38.0 51.6 34.1 32.0 21.3

Very poorly 30.7 21.8 14.9 39.2 27.6 9.6 14.3 14.5 19.4 25.4 17.5 18.4


19.8 18.4 24.2 17.2 17.0 19.0 35.4 23.1 19.3 19.7 42.0

99




Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % % % % %

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 18.0 27.9 33.9 13.4 25.8 50.6 19.3 24.4 29.0 21.3 30.7 18.4

TOTAL POOR 62.2 53.7 42.0 69.4 57.2 30.4 45.3 52.5 71.0 59.4 49.5 39.7

DK/NA 19.8 18.4 24.2 17.2 17.0 19.0 35.4 23.1 19.3 19.7 42.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Privatization agencies

Very well 1.6 2.4 2.4 1.0 5.4 2.8 1.0 1.8 5.6 .3

Well enough 14.2 13.5 14.6 8.7 9.9 18.0 14.5 12.7 9.6 20.5 17.2 11.2

Poorly 26.3 31.2 34.1 27.6 23.9 26.2 30.7 42.8 55.9 24.1 37.3 33.4

Very poorly 42.7 42.4 39.4 49.4 59.5 44.6 20.9 23.7 33.3 40.3 27.0 36.9


15.2 10.6 9.5 13.3 6.7 5.8 31.0 19.8 1.2 13.4 12.8 18.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 15.8 15.8 17.1 9.8 9.9 23.3 17.3 13.8 9.6 22.2 22.8 11.6

TOTAL POOR 69.1 73.6 73.5 76.9 83.4 70.8 51.7 66.5 89.2 64.4 64.4 70.2

DK/NA 15.2 10.6 9.5 13.3 6.7 5.8 31.0 19.8 1.2 13.4 12.8 18.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Employment bureaux

Very well 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.9 0.2 3.0 2.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 5.9 .2

Well enough 12.6 11.4 14.1 11.7 5.9 14.3 24.0 9.6 21.9 10.4 17.4 10.4

Poorly 28.3 25.9 33.0 26.5 18.9 28.2 24.4 34.8 43.8 31.6 32.3 35.9

Very poorly 38.2 50.7 43.2 36.8 68.8 50.9 38.1 38.1 31.5 39.6 32.7 37.9


18.3 9.5 7.6 22.0 6.2 3.7 10.7 16.3 1.2 16.6 11.7 15.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL WELL 15.1 13.9 16.2 14.6 6.1 17.2 26.8 10.8 23.5 12.3 23.2 10.6

TOTAL POOR 66.5 76.6 76.2 63.3 87.7 79.1 62.5 72.9 75.4 71.1 65.1 73.8

DK/NA 18.3 9.5 7.6 22.0 6.2 3.7 10.7 16.3 1.2 16.6 11.7 15.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


100


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

Presidency of BiH Not at all 2.2 2.3 3.5 2.3 2.8 3.8 2.2 1.8 3.2

Not much 17.2 16.1 16.4 18.2 18.1 14.2 16.1 14.0 18.4

To some degree 14.6 17.7 21.1 14.8 18.3 19.4 14.3 17.1 22.7

Fairly 25.5 29.3 31.0 25.0 26.9 34.2 25.9 31.9 27.9

Very 40.6 34.5 28.0 39.6 33.8 28.3 41.5 35.3 27.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 1.2 0.7 2.0 1.3 1.1 2.3 1.2 0.3 1.8

Not much 14.3 11.5 14.4 15.6 13.6 12.7 13.1 9.3 16.0

To some degree 15.6 15.4 22.7 15.9 17.8 21.2 15.3 12.8 24.1

Fairly 26.9 27.9 34.1 26.2 25.8 36.4 27.6 30.0 32.0

Very 41.9 44.6 26.7 41.1 41.7 27.4 42.8 47.6 26.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Council of Ministers of BiH Not at all 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.8 1.4 2.1 0.6 0.3 1.5

Not much 13.3 10.2 11.5 13.5 12.7 10.2 13.2 7.7 12.8

To some degree 15.0 14.1 22.0 16.2 15.0 19.6 13.8 13.2 24.2

Fairly 27.3 27.4 35.5 25.7 25.8 38.0 28.9 29.0 33.1

Very 43.2 47.4 29.2 42.9 45.1 30.1 43.5 49.8 28.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 0.7 0.9 1.9 0.7 1.5 2.4 0.6 0.2 1.5

Not much 13.1 9.5 12.0 13.3 12.0 9.2 12.8 6.9 14.7

To some degree 14.4 13.9 22.8 14.9 14.6 21.0 13.8 13.3 24.5

Fairly 26.3 27.0 34.4 25.9 25.3 37.6 26.6 28.7 31.4

Very 45.6 48.7 28.9 45.1 46.6 29.9 46.2 50.9 27.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 0.8 1.1 2.4 1.1 2.1 1.9 0.6 0.1 2.9

Not much 12.1 8.7 11.5 12.1 10.5 9.4 12.1 6.7 13.5

To some degree 15.3 12.8 19.3 16.7 13.5 18.3 13.9 12.0 20.4

Fairly 25.5 26.3 36.2 24.3 24.4 39.3 26.6 28.3 33.1

Very 46.3 51.2 30.6 45.8 49.5 31.1 46.8 52.9 30.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 1.13

How widespread do you think corruption, that is bribery or abuse of office for private purposes, is in these institutions?

101


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

National Assembly of RS Not at all 1.2 3.0 1.4 1.8 5.1 1.9 0.6 0.8 1.0

Not much 11.8 7.3 10.8 11.8 8.1 9.3 11.7 6.5 12.2

To some degree 14.5 13.1 19.3 15.3 14.1 17.5 13.8 12.0 21.0

Fairly 26.0 25.3 36.9 25.3 25.0 39.4 26.6 25.7 34.4

Very 46.5 51.3 31.7 45.7 47.8 31.9 47.3 55.0 31.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 0.9 3.1 1.0 1.5 5.2 .8 0.3 0.8 1.2

Not much 12.5 6.9 11.6 13.1 7.4 9.7 12.0 6.4 13.5

To some degree 14.0 12.9 19.5 13.8 13.3 18.5 14.1 12.5 20.5

Fairly 26.1 25.2 35.3 26.0 25.3 38.2 26.2 25.1 32.4

Very 46.5 51.9 32.6 45.7 48.7 32.8 47.3 55.2 32.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Municipal authorities Not at all 1.2 2.7 2.1 1.3 4.8 1.7 1.1 0.5 2.5

Not much 15.0 8.0 11.8 16.2 8.4 9.7 13.8 7.7 14.0

To some degree 17.3 18.2 22.8 16.9 17.5 23.8 17.7 18.9 21.8

Fairly 26.8 27.9 34.8 27.2 26.4 36.6 26.3 29.5 33.0

Very 39.8 43.2 28.4 38.4 42.9 28.1 41.1 43.4 28.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OSCE Not at all 9.1 14.8 10.3 8.4 13.1 8.0 9.9 16.6 12.5

Not much 19.6 26.1 21.8 19.6 25.1 20.6 19.5 27.2 22.9

To some degree 24.9 20.1 25.9 25.4 17.8 26.2 24.3 22.7 25.6

Fairly 21.4 19.2 24.7 22.4 22.2 26.8 20.5 16.1 22.8

Very 25.0 19.7 17.3 24.2 21.9 18.5 25.8 17.4 16.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OHR Not at all 10.3 15.6 10.7 9.2 13.0 9.0 11.3 18.4 12.4

Not much 19.6 26.0 22.9 19.2 24.7 21.0 20.0 27.4 24.8

To some degree 24.6 19.5 24.2 26.5 18.7 25.1 22.6 20.4 23.4

Fairly 21.8 19.3 23.9 21.9 21.6 25.1 21.7 16.9 22.8

Very 23.8 19.5 18.2 23.2 22.0 19.9 24.3 16.9 16.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

102


AllGender

Male Female

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

% % % % % % % % %

UNDP Not at all 10.8 14.8 12.3 10.4 12.3 10.9 11.3 17.5 13.6

Not much 21.7 28.9 22.4 22.5 29.7 20.0 21.0 28.1 24.6

To some degree 23.1 19.2 23.7 23.2 17.0 24.5 22.9 21.7 23.0

Fairly 21.9 18.7 23.7 22.2 21.0 25.3 21.7 16.3 22.1

Very 22.4 18.3 18.0 21.7 20.1 19.3 23.2 16.5 16.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

European Commission Delegation

Not at all 11.0 8.6 10.8 7.5 11.2 9.6

Not much 20.8 18.8 21.3 18.9 20.3 18.7

To some degree 16.1 17.3 15.4 17.1 16.7 17.5

Fairly 14.5 17.9 17.1 18.6 11.9 17.3

Very 13.6 13.4 15.5 15.3 11.8 11.6

24.0 23.9 20.0 22.5 27.9 25.3

Total Not at all 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

European Integrations Directorate of BiH

14.1 15.0 10.4 15.3 14.2 9.2 12.9 15.9 11.6

48.5 28.0 23.6 46.9 28.0 21.9 50.2 28.0 25.3

29.1 20.1 24.3 29.3 18.9 24.6 28.8 21.4 24.0

8.3 19.2 23.8 8.5 20.6 24.6 8.1 17.6 23.0

17.7 17.9 18.3 19.7 17.1 16.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


103




% % % % % % % % %

Presidency of BiH Not at all 4.0 1.9 6.1 0.4 1.6 1.2 0.9 3.2 1.7

Not much 12.6 15.2 17.9 18.3 20.0 14.5 20.7 12.7 13.2

To some degree 12.8 18.1 20.6 14.8 26.2 24.2 15.1 12.9 20.5

Fairly 20.9 26.2 23.4 34.5 30.7 41.8 28.7 34.9 31.9

Very 49.7 38.6 32.0 32.1 21.5 18.3 34.7 36.3 32.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 1.8 3.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 1.5 1.6

Not much 9.3 8.7 16.3 16.3 15.7 5.4 19.2 12.7 15.0

To some degree 13.4 10.8 22.7 16.2 29.0 29.0 15.6 14.1 19.3

Fairly 22.6 22.0 24.9 35.6 27.6 48.1 29.9 36.3 35.9

Very 52.8 58.5 32.9 30.7 26.6 17.4 34.7 35.4 28.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Council of Ministers of BiH Not at all 1.8 0.8 2.9 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.2 1.3

Not much 7.6 6.8 13.7 11.3 16.0 5.8 19.5 12.2 12.5

To some degree 12.6 8.6 22.0 21.6 26.6 19.4 14.7 14.9 20.8

Fairly 22.8 20.5 26.0 34.2 30.5 52.5 30.6 35.7 36.4

Very 55.2 63.3 35.5 32.6 26.4 22.3 34.5 36.1 29.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 0.9 1.1 3.2 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.7 1.3

Not much 7.8 7.3 14.3 12.2 16.1 8.3 18.3 9.7 11.6

To some degree 10.7 8.8 22.9 19.9 25.2 26.8 16.5 14.2 19.9

Fairly 21.1 19.4 26.7 33.5 30.7 46.1 29.8 36.8 35.2

Very 59.5 63.4 33.0 33.7 27.2 18.8 35.0 38.6 32.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Not at all 0.9 1.1 3.3 1.2 0.7 2.9 0.7 1.4 .8

Not much 7.5 7.0 13.3 10.8 14.3 4.3 17.3 8.4 12.8

To some degree 11.1 7.8 18.9 22.3 26.4 19.9 17.4 13.4 19.4

Fairly 19.6 18.0 28.2 32.5 28.7 50.4 29.6 36.0 35.8

Very 60.9 66.1 36.4 33.2 29.8 22.5 35.0 40.9 31.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

National Assembly of RS Not at all 0.5 1.1 2.2 0.8 0.5 2.2 6.5 1.5

Not much 6.6 2.8 7.1 6.3 9.3 4.7 19.3 11.4 16.7

Table 1.14

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as bribery or abuse of office for private gain is in the following institutions?

104




% % % % % % % % %

To some degree 9.9 6.0 15.9 16.5 24.7 21.7 17.5 16.3 20.1

Fairly 18.4 16.0 32.2 34.9 35.1 50.4 31.3 34.1 34.5

Very 64.6 74.1 42.6 41.5 30.4 23.1 29.7 31.6 27.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Government of RS Not at all 0.5 1.4 1.6 0.8 0.8 1.5 6.3 1.0

Not much 7.2 1.7 7.9 6.8 7.0 7.7 20.2 12.1 17.1

To some degree 9.6 5.5 15.3 15.1 24.2 18.3 16.8 16.6 22.4

Fairly 18.6 15.3 30.3 34.3 36.5 50.7 32.0 35.0 31.8

Very 64.1 76.2 44.9 43.0 31.6 23.3 29.5 30.1 27.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Municipal authorities Not at all 1.0 2.0 2.8 0.4 0.7 2.9 1.8 4.4 1.2

Not much 10.6 2.7 11.1 8.6 11.8 4.3 19.7 11.7 16.1

To some degree 16.4 15.4 23.3 21.8 30.3 23.3 16.6 16.4 22.5

Fairly 21.4 21.5 26.2 36.1 29.2 52.6 30.5 36.7 32.8

Very 50.6 58.4 36.6 33.1 27.9 16.9 31.4 30.8 27.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OSCE Not at all 13.3 22.8 18.4 7.5 11.8 7.2 3.8 2.7 3.8

Not much 17.6 32.5 31.6 18.5 30.8 6.5 19.0 14.0 14.5

To some degree 33.4 21.3 25.9 18.5 26.4 31.2 17.9 17.9 23.6

Fairly 14.6 8.1 12.3 30.0 20.1 40.2 28.0 35.2 30.6

Very 21.0 15.2 11.7 25.5 10.8 14.9 31.3 30.3 27.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

OHR Not at all 15.1 23.7 19.7 8.9 17.6 5.9 4.3 1.9 3.8

Not much 19.4 33.8 32.1 17.1 25.4 9.9 17.5 14.3 16.0

To some degree 32.2 20.5 26.0 16.2 27.3 28.8 19.6 17.1 20.8

Fairly 15.0 9.8 11.2 32.7 20.4 38.9 27.6 32.7 30.2

Very 18.4 12.1 11.0 25.2 9.3 16.5 31.1 34.0 29.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

UNDP Not at all 15.9 23.0 22.4 8.2 13.8 7.5 4.9 2.2 3.4

Not much 21.2 38.7 30.4 20.3 27.6 12.9 20.0 14.4 17.5

To some degree 30.6 18.6 24.2 15.1 27.7 30.5 17.8 18.6 19.2

Fairly 15.7 8.5 11.9 32.2 21.9 35.5 27.1 32.4 30.3

Very 16.6 11.2 11.1 24.2 9.1 13.5 30.2 32.4 29.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

105




% % % % % % % % %

European Commission Delegation

Not at all 17.5 15.7 12.5 5.8 2.6 2.6

Not much 29.6 27.0 17.5 11.9 8.8 12.5

To some degree 16.3 18.5 21.0 26.4 14.7 13.9

Fairly 6.6 7.7 16.1 37.8 23.8 20.8

Very 8.5 7.3 5.7 12.9 23.0 21.4

21.5 23.8 27.1 5.2 27.1 28.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

European Integrations Directorate of BiH

15.7 23.5 19.5 15.8 19.1 3.0 7.3 3.1 4.7

Not at all 44.5 37.3 34.3 36.4 25.9 14.3 58.1 13.4 15.9

Not much 30.3 19.4 25.1 42.9 25.1 28.8 26.2 20.0 20.5

To some degree 9.5 9.7 11.0 4.8 21.1 39.2 8.4 31.9 29.1

Fairly 10.1 10.0 8.8 14.6 31.6 29.9

Total Very 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


AllGender

Male Female


% % % % % % % % %

Political reforms Very positively 4.9 13.0 5.8 4.1 13.8 6.0 5.7 12.3 5.6

Generally positively 35.8 36.5 37.5 38.9 31.0 35.8 32.8 41.9 39.2

Generally negatively 28.9 25.6 31.2 26.5 31.3 31.6 31.1 20.0 30.8

Very negatively 11.8 16.7 15.3 13.0 16.7 17.9 10.5 16.8 12.8

DK/NA 18.7 8.1 10.2 17.5 7.2 8.8 19.9 9.0 11.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Political reforms TOTAL POSITIVELY 40.6 49.5 43.3 42.9 44.8 41.7 38.4 54.2 44.8

TOTAL NEGATIVELY 40.6 42.4 46.4 39.5 48.1 49.5 41.6 36.8 43.5

DK/NA 18.7 8.1 10.2 17.5 7.2 8.8 19.9 9.0 11.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Economic reforms Very positively 4.1 11.3 4.6 3.5 11.2 5.3 4.7 11.4 4.0


Table 1.15

How would you rate the measures taken by the Office of the High Representative in the following areas?

106


AllGender

Male Female


% % % % % % % % %


Very negatively 12.3 16.6 14.4 13.8 17.1 17.4 10.8 16.0 11.6

DK/NA 19.1 8.5 9.4 17.9 8.0 7.6 20.1 8.9 11.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Economic reforms TOTAL POSITIVELY 36.9 48.6 40.5 37.6 44.4 39.3 36.2 52.8 41.7


DK/NA 19.1 8.5 9.4 17.9 8.0 7.6 20.1 8.9 11.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Anti-corruption Very positively 4.1 9.7 5.4 4.3 10.0 6.0 4.0 9.5 4.8



Very negatively 19.0 23.3 19.1 18.6 23.5 22.4 19.2 23.1 16.0

DK/NA 18.4 9.1 8.9 17.4 9.7 7.4 19.3 8.4 10.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Anti-corruption TOTAL POSITIVELY 33.7 39.2 36.0 34.5 34.7 34.6 33.0 43.7 37.4


DK/NA 18.4 9.1 8.9 17.4 9.7 7.4 19.3 8.4 10.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Public administration reform

Very positively 4.9 12.1 4.5 4.5 12.5 4.3 5.2 11.7 4.8



Very negatively 12.5 17.4 14.9 14.6 17.4 18.8 10.6 17.4 11.1

DK/NA 19.0 10.0 10.9 17.9 10.7 10.0 20.0 9.4 11.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


TOTAL POSITIVELY 41.7 49.6 44.6 41.3 45.2 44.1 42.2 54.0 45.1


DK/NA 19.0 10.0 10.9 17.9 10.7 10.0 20.0 9.4 11.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


107




% % % % % % % % %

Political reforms Very positively 8.2 23.2 12.4 3.4 9.2 1.2 0.6 2.3 .7



Very negatively 8.4 7.8 9.7 5.0 14.4 8.8 18.4 28.8 24.4

DK/NA 13.1 4.7 3.5 32.9 19.7 1.4 22.4 8.9 22.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Political reforms TOTAL POSITIVELY 56.3 71.1 57.1 33.4 38.2 61.6 21.7 26.1 17.5


DK/NA 13.1 4.7 3.5 32.9 19.7 1.4 22.4 8.9 22.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Economic reforms Very positively 6.7 20.8 10.0 3.0 7.5 .2 0.9 1.0 1.7



Very negatively 9.3 10.4 12.7 6.6 19.9 2.3 17.9 23.3 19.7

DK/NA 14.1 4.7 3.4 32.9 19.3 1.2 22.1 10.0 20.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Economic reforms TOTAL POSITIVELY 49.6 65.0 51.0 30.5 39.4 66.4 22.3 30.7 18.5


DK/NA 14.1 4.7 3.4 32.9 19.3 1.2 22.1 10.0 20.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Anti-corruption Very positively 6.7 17.6 8.8 2.8 7.2 3.7 0.9 0.7 2.1



Very negatively 15.9 21.5 19.1 15.0 24.7 5.7 23.5 25.8 23.3

DK/NA 13.1 6.5 3.2 32.4 19.6 21.6 9.4 20.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Anti-corruption TOTAL POSITIVELY 43.8 48.0 39.4 27.3 30.7 66.8 23.0 29.8 18.7


DK/NA 13.1 6.5 3.2 32.4 19.6 21.6 9.4 20.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Very positively 7.4 20.3 8.6 3.3 7.6 3.7 1.6 3.2 1.4



Very negatively 9.0 13.6 13.0 8.2 19.3 7.4 16.9 21.6 18.8

Table 1.16

How would you rate the measures taken by the Office of the High Representative in the following areas?

108




% % % % % % % % %

DK/NA 13.4 6.3 5.4 32.9 23.6 .6 22.7 10.8 22.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


TOTAL POSITIVELY 56.4 63.1 50.3 27.8 34.6 66.9 28.0 37.6 26.7


DK/NA 13.4 6.3 5.4 32.9 23.6 .6 22.7 10.8 22.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


AllGender

Male Female


% % % % % % % % %

Reduced 37.6 36.8 43.6 39.6 40.0 46.5 35.7 33.6 40.9

Increased 23.1 33.5 21.4 23.1 35.1 23.3 23.2 31.9 19.7

Stay the same 30.7 22.0 30.9 30.5 20.5 26.1 30.9 23.6 35.4

DK/NA 8.5 7.7 4.1 6.8 4.4 4.1 10.1 11.0 4.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0




% % % % % % % % %

Reduced 10.9 7.5 14.0 28.9 32.6 59.5 71.6 74.5 67.3

Increased 41.9 61.2 39.7 18.9 24.4 11.4 2.9 3.2 7.7

Stay the same 40.0 21.9 42.9 31.9 25.3 27.2 19.1 19.4 18.6

DK/NA 7.2 9.4 3.4 20.2 17.7 1.9 6.4 3.0 6.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.17

Do you think the High Representative’s powers should be reduced, increased or stay the same?

Table 1.18

Do you think the High Representative’s powers should be reduced, increased or stay the same?

109


Respondents



% % % % % % % % %

Significantly improved 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 1.2 1.8 0.2 3.8

Somewhat improved 18.6 10.7 12.9 14.2 14.3 14.3 37.9 20.2 16.0

Stayed the same 45.0 41.0 52.4 43.3 50.9 73.4 45.7 46.9 55.7

Somewhat deteriorated 26.4 25.6 24.2 18.0 18.8 9.6 6.8 20.9 16.2

Significantly deteriorated

3.2 18.8 7.6 1.5 3.3 1.6 1.5 2.0 5.6


5.7 3.8 2.1 22.1 12.4 6.2 9.9 2.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 1.19

Looking at the effectiveness of state-level institutions over the past five years, has it significantly improved, somewhat improved, stayed the same, somewhat deteriorated, or significantly deteriorated?

Table 1.20

Looking at the effectiveness of entity-level institutions over the past five years, has it significantly improved, somewhat improved, stayed the same, somewhat deteriorated, or significantly deteriorated?

Table 1.21

Please indicate to what extent you use various forms of informal, personal connections and contacts in the day-to-day conduct of your business.

Respondents



% % % % % % % % %

Significantly improved 1.0 2.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 1.6 0.8 4.2

Somewhat improved 18.1 7.9 11.6 16.6 15.4 14.0 40.7 28.1 26.6

Stayed the same 51.7 41.5 51.5 47.4 48.6 72.2 43.7 45.8 50.4

Somewhat deteriorated 21.3 26.6 25.7 18.9 20.0 11.5 5.8 13.2 11.6

Significantly deteriorated

3.0 17.9 7.5 1.9 3.1 1.6 1.0 3.0 2.8


5.0 3.6 3.1 14.7 12.6 0.6 7.2 9.2 4.4

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Respondents



% % % % % %

Always 3.4 2.5 2.5 2.0 0.4 0.6

Sometimes 11.8 12.6 19.5 30.1 11.3 10.5

Occasionally 19.0 23.2 20.7 41.4 12.5 18.7

Never 60.8 58.1 40.9 22.4 67.8 62.4


5.0 3.6 16.4 4.1 8.1 7.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


110



Feb 05 96.00 48

Jun 05 100.00 48

Sep 05 93.75 45

Nov 05 97.78 44

Apr 06 106.82 47

Jun 06 100.00 47

Sep 06 102.13 48

Nov 06 102.08 49

Apr 07 102.04 50

Sep 07 94.00 47

Nov 07 91.49 43

Mar 08 106.98 46

Jun 08 102.17 47

Oct 08 102.13 48

Nov 08 100.00 48

Nov 09 97.92 47

Nov 10 100.00 47

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for this project by Prism Research, November 2010 and the calculations prepared by the team.

Table 2.1

Economic Stability Index in BiH

Table 2.2

Index of the volume of industrial production in Bosnia and Herzegovinat

ENTITY

I-XI 2009 I-XI

2008

Results achieved during 2009

XI 2010

0 2009

I-XI 2010

I-XI 2009Best performing sector Worst performing sector

FEDERATION OF BIH 88.2 109.7 103.4Production of coke,

petroleum derivatives and nuclear fuel

Production of motor vehicles, trailers and

semitrailers

REPUBLIKA SRPSKA 118.8 118.9 104.1 RecyclingProduction of radio, TV

and communication equipment

Sources: Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeksi industrijske proizvodnje - novembar 2010, Year III, No. 9. 11. Sarajevo, December, 2010; Republic Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeksi industrijske proizvodnje, No. 234/10: December 2010

a2. Economic and Financial Stability

111


Bosnia and Herzegovina 2007. 2008. 2009.January

2010September

2010

Total Unemployment in BiH 520,432 480,313 502,192 516,185 517,004

Unemployed Women in BiH 257,507 260,255

Unemployed Men in BiH 258,678 256,749

Unemployed university graduates - BiH 18,004 20,055

Unemployed university graduates – BiH - women 11,208 12,822

Unemployed university graduates – BiH - men 6,796 7,233

Federation of BiH 370,459 345,381 347,146 357,664 363,146

Republika Srpska 146,180 136,108 134,798 147,816 142,625

Sources: Data for BiH: Statistics Agency of BiH, Saopštenje - registrirana nezaposlenost u septembru 2010. godine, No. 9, Year IV, November 2010. FBiH: Federal Statistics Office, Mjesečni statistički pregled, No. 11, Year XIV, December 2010; RS: Employment Bureau of Republika Srpska, www.zzrs.org., December 2010, data presented by years refer to each January.

Table 2.3

Unemployment in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Table 2.4

Retail Price Index in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Table 2.5

Expectations regarding prices changes over the coming half-year

Retail Price IndexXI 2010

0 2005

XI 2010

XI 2009

I-XI 2010

I-XI 2009

Retail Price Index in Bosnia and Herzegovina 118.7 102.3 102.0

Retail Price Index in the Federation of BiH 118.8 102.3 101.6

Retail Price Index in Republika Srpska 118.7 102.4 102.4

Sources: Data for BiH: Statistics Agency of BiH, Sopštenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena u BiH u novembru 2010, Year IV, No. December 11, 2010. Data for FBiH: Federal Statistics Office, Saopćenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena u FBiH – novembar 2010, Year III, No. 7.1.11., December 2010. Data for RS: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Mjesečno saopštenje - indeks potrošačkih cijena, No. 231/10, December 2010.

BIHSep

2006Dec

2006April 2007

Sep 2007

Nov 2007

March 2008

June 2008

Sep 2008

Nov 2008

Nov 2010

% % % % % % % % % %

Fall in prices 5.0 6.8 2.2 4.1 6.7 4.7 2.5 9.8 8.7 5.6

Increase in prices 54.7 62.8 60.2 87.6 87.5 83.8 81.1 71.8 74.9 77.6

No changes 33.7 25.5 26.0 2.9 3.8 7.9 11.5 13.1 11.6 14.9

No answer 6.7 4.9 11.6 5.4 1.9 3.6 4.9 5.2 4.9 1.8


112


MONTH RESERVES

XII 2003 2821

XII 2004 3507

XII 2005 4252

XII 2006 5480

XII 2007 6726

XII 2008 6324

XII 2009 6212

I 2010 6035

II 6039

III 6193

IV 6150

V 6115

VI 5953

VII 6099

VIII 6375

IX 6258

X 6416

Source: Central Bank of BiH, www.cbbh.gov.ba, December 2010, data refers to a total amount of foreign currency assets of the CBBiH.

Table 2.6

Foreign currency reserves at the Central Bank of BiH

Table 2.7

The balance of foreign trade between Bosnia and Herzegovina and abroad (millions of BAM) for the periods of I-X for 2008-2010

I - X 2008 I – X 2009 I – X 2010Change in %

compared to 2009

Export 5,849 4,649 5,822 + 28 %

Import 13,598 9,984 11,124 + 9 %

Volume 19,447 14,633 16,946 + 16 %

Balance - 7,749 - 5,335 - 5,302 + 1 %

Import-Export ratio in %

43 % 45 % 52 % + 5 %

Source: Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH Pregled i analiza ostvarene razmjene za BiH for the period 01 to 10 2008/09, November 2009. Statistics Agency of BiH, Saopštenje - statistika robne razmjene sa inostranstvom, Year VI, No. 10, November 2010.

113


BiHJune 2008

Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Nov 2010Men Nov

2010Women

Nov 2010

% % % % % % %

BETTER 14.0 15.5 10.8 5.4 8.1 7.0 9.1

SAME 51.5 57.1 53.8 47.0 56.4 57.1 55.8

WORSE 33.7 27.0 34.5 45.9 35.1 35.6 34.5

NO ANSWER 0.7 0.3 1.0 1.7 0.4 0.3 0.6


Table 2.8

Public opinion - assessment of economic conditions during past year

Table 2.9

Public opinion – assessment of economic conditions during past year, by entity

Table 2.10

Public opinion - assessment of economic conditions for the coming year


FBiH RS DB FBiH RS DB

% % % % % %

BETTER 4.7 5.4 20.2 10.0 5.6 5.0

SAME 44.8 50.6 43.7 58.5 53.2 57.6

WORSE 47.8 43.7 36.1 31.5 40.2 36.7

NO ANSWER 2.7 0.3 - - 1.0 0.7


BiHJune 2008

Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Nov 2010Men Nov

2010Women

Nov 2010

% % % % % % %

BETTER 21.1 16.4 27.1 26.6 22.5 21.1 16.4

SAME 56.6 66.2 58.6 55.9 62.5 56.6 66.2

WORSE 16.8 13.3 9.6 12.4 13.8 16.8 13.3

NO ANSWER 5.5 4.1 4.8 5.1 1.3 5.5 4.1

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for this project by Prism Research, November 2010.

114


BETTER SAME WORSE

(%) (%) (%)

MARCH 2006 7 41 53

JUNE 2006 7 39 54

SEPTEMBER 2006 17 38 45

DECEMBER 2006 13 40 47

APRIL 2007 16 51 33

SEPTEMBER 2007 22 34 43

DECEMBER 2007 9 29 62

MARCH 2008 12 35 53

JULY 2008 9 35 55

SEPTEMBER 2008 12 35 53

DEC 2008 4 28 68

NOV 2009 48 46 6

NOV 2010 8 35 58

Source: The Business Environment Survey conducted for the UNDP Early Warning System in BiH project by PRISM Research, Business to Business Survey – top 150, November 2010

Table 3.1

Compared to the same period last year, the economic situation in BiH is...

Table 3.2

In your opinion, the economic situation in BiH in six months will be....

BETTER SAME WORSE

(%) (%) (%)

MARCH 2006 15 52 33

JUNE 2006 13 60 26

SEPTEMBER 2006 16 62 21

DECEMBER 2006 19 54 25

APRIL 2007 21 55 23

SEPTEMBER 2007 21 52 24

DECEMBER 2007 18 29 62

MARCH 2008 17 47 36

JULY 2008 15 58 26

SEPTEMBER 2008 11 52 37

DEC 2008 3 35 62

NOV 2009 38 57 5

NOV 2010 15 53 33

FBIH NOV 2010 17 54 29

RS NOV 2010 4 52 44


a3. Business Environment

115


Table 3.3

Capacity utilization in companies

Survey Above At Bellow

% % %

BOSNIA AND

HERZEGOVINA

DECEMBER 2005 31 39 29

MARCH 2006 5 51 43

JUNE 2006 7 57 35

SEPTEMBER 2006 7 47 46

DECEMBER 2006 9 42 48

APRIL 2007 6 49 45

SEPT. 2007 9 53 38

DECEMBER 2007 8 42 51

MARCH 2008 10 43 48

JULY 2008 10 43 47


DEC 2008 2 53 45

NOV 2009 52 45 3

NOV 2010 17 57 27

FBiH

MARCH 2006 4 50 45

JUNE 2006 7 59 34


DECEMBER 2006 11 42 45

APRIL 2007 6 51 43

SEPT. 2007 11 54 35

DECEMBER 2007 8 47 45

MARCH 2008 12 42 46

JULY 2008 10 46 44


DEC 2008 1 53 46

NOV 2009 51 48 1

NOV 2010 20 57 23

RS

MARCH 2006 7 54 39

JUNE 2006 13 38 50

SEPTEMBER 2006 - 38 62

DECEMBER 2006 - 42 58

APRIL 2007 6 44 50

SEPT. 2007 29 48 35

DECEMBER 2007 6 24 71

MARCH 2008 3 45 52

JULY 2008 10 21 47


DEC 2008 0 58 42

NOV 2009 56 31 13

NOV 2010 4 54 42


116


BETTER SAME WORSE

(%) (%) (%)

APRIL 2007 43 36 21

SEPTEMBER 2007 62 24 14

DECEMBER 2007 46 34 20

MARCH 2008 50 32 17

JULY 2008 35 41 24

SEPTEMBER 2008 28 46 26

DEC 2008 27 44 29

NOV 2009 73 27

NOV 2010 39 45 17


Table 3.4

Considering your company’s operations as a whole, would you say that, compared to the same period last year, from a financial perspective, your situation now is...

Table 3.5

In six months, do you expect your company’s operations, financially speaking, to be...

BETTER SAME WORSE

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA (%) (%) (%)

MARCH 2008 50 36 14

JULY 2008 45 46 9

SEPTEMBER 2008 31 48 21

DEC 2008 21 36 43

NOV 2009 73 27

NOV 2010 42 37 21

FBiH (%) (%) (%)

MARCH 2008 49 32 18

JULY 2008 46 46 9

SEPTEMBER 2008 31 47 22

DEC 2008 18 36 46

NOV 2009 73 27

NOV 2010 43 39 18

RS (%) (%) (%)

MARCH 2008 52 45 3

JULY 2008 41 48 10

SEPTEMBER 2008 27 55 18

DEC 2008 25 33 42

NOV 2009 75 25

NOV 2010 35 35 31


117


Higher (%) Same (%) Lower (%)

XII

2008

XI

2009

XI’

10

XII

2008

XI

2009

XI’

10

XII

2008

XI

2009

XI’

10

BiH 37 67 48 35 30.6 38 28 2 14

FBIH 35 68 45 38 29.3 41 27 2 14

RS 42 62 58 33 37.5 31 25 12


Table 3.6

Compared to the same period last year, would you say your company’s level of debt is...?

Table 3.7

During the first quarter of the year your company made a...

Table 3.8

How helpful are the various levels of government to the business sector in dealing with business problems?

PROFIT LOSS

(%) (%)

MARCH 2006 76 24

JUNE 2006 77 23

SEPTEMBER 2006 79 21

DECEMBER 2006 81 19

APRIL 2007 79 18

SEPT. 2007 79 16

DECEMBER 2007 77 20

MARCH 2008 78 18

JULY 2008 72 26

SEPTEMBER 2008 63 26

DECEMBER 2008 69 31

NOVEMBER 2009 67 33

NOVEMBEAR 2010 - BiH 67 33

NOVEMBEAR 2010 - FBIH 65 35

NOVEMBER 2010 - RS 77 23


Very helpful Generally helpfulNeither helpful nor unhelpful

Generally unhelpful

Not helpful at all

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

State 3 30 10 5 56 23 26 14 24 27 20 29 13

Entity 2 16 5 11 60 27 20 22 22 26 1 19 28 13

Cantonal 2 8 4 19 53 28 13 38 23 26 1 17 25 12

Municipal 2 13 4 20 44 30 15 42 25 28 1 19 24 10


118


Very Somewhat Not much Not at all

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

Customs procedures 19 26 24 39 50 47 25 23 20 12 1 5

Tax rates 48 9 32 28 48 32 17 41 29 2 2 3

Unfair competition 42 13 29 27 52 33 16 34 25 9 1 7

Corruption 42 13 32 26 45 26 12 39 27 6 3 2

Operations of judiciary 45 22 30 26 36 29 16 38 28 3 4 4

Political instability 34 19 25 27 42 34 24 36 32 6 3 3

Labour market regulations 28 19 21 31 53 36 21 24 29 14 3 7

Tax administration 19 7 39 38 65 46 29 27 27 9 1 4

Procedures of issuance of work permits

38 19 31 29 42 32 20 35 27 8 4 7

Environmental regulations 17 17 10 36 49 44 23 32 30 12 2 9

Safety regulations and standards

14 18 16 30 53 32 31 27 34 15 2 9

Lack of qualified personnel 19 19 22 34 49 38 26 31 25 14 1 9


Table 3.9

How great an obstacle are the following to the successful conduct of business?

Table 3.10

How well do the following institutions do their jobs?

Very well Well enough Quite poorly Very poorly

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

XII

‘08

XI

‘09

XI

‘10

Central Bank of BiH 30 29 27 39 53 45 4 17 10 6 14

Indirect Taxation Authority 16 12 12 50 64 55 18 21 21 9 1 6

Entity tax administrations 6 11 11 48 52 44 25 35 33 17 1 9

Judicial system 3 10 7 17 46 26 36 34 44 35 1 18


7 20 11 18 40 25 20 37 31 10 2 7

FIPA 3 15 6 19 55 35 18 28 21 19 1 14

Privatization agencies 2 13 3 14 54 30 22 32 30 28 14

Banking agencies 5 11 6 32 53 35 20 30 30 7 5 5

Employment bureaux 3 16 9 36 50 37 24 27 31 17 6 10

Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH

4 17 11 29 44 30 30 35 35 18 1 12

Entity chambers of commerce

11 19 16 28 46 34 27 31 27 19 3 14

Social funds 2 17 7 10 50 22 26 28 31 37 4 21


119


VII ’08 IX ’08 XII’08 XI ’09 XI ’10

Very much 8 9 11 28 15

Somewhat 26 31 27 61 37

Not much 31 32 28 10 25

Not at all 22 19 24 1 13

Cannot answer 13 8 10 9


Table 3.11

Please estimate how much you use various informal connections and contacts like family, friends, colleagues, etc. in your day-to-day business...

Table 3.12

Please estimate how much you use various ‘’unwritten rules’’ like customs, different business practices, codes of behaviour, etc. in your day-to-day business.

.

Table 3.13

How much do you think the current institutional framework in BiH, that is the way in which government is organised and functions, affects your business operations in terms of the costs you face

VII ’08 IX ’08 XII’08 XI ’09 XI ’10

Very much 4 8 9 22 14

Somewhat 26 39 37 66 47

Not much 29 33 26 11 22

Not at all 21 11 17 8

No answer 20 8 12 9


VII ’08 IX ’08 XII’08 XI ’09 XI ’10

Much more than necessary 42 39 39 35 33

Somewhat more than necessary

24 31 24 54 40

Just right 10 11 10 10 11

Somewhat less 2 3 2 2 2

A lot less than necessary 3 4 7 2

No answer 18 12 18 12


120


VII ’08 IX ’08 XII’08 XI ’09 XI ’10

Much more than necessary 42 44 40 32 36

Somewhat more than necessary

21 19 18 55 31

Just right 9 16 11 12 15

Somewhat less 5 3 4

A lot less than necessary 4 4 7 2

No answer 3 12 21 12


Table 3.14

How much do you think the current institutional framework in BiH, that is the way in which government is organised and functions, affects your business operations in terms of time spent (time-intensive procedures, activities...)

Table 3.15

If looking at institutions in BiH, could you estimate how much higher your total business costs are because of direct cash payments to state institutions?

Table 3.16

Can you estimate how much higher your total business costs are because of indirect costs associated with public institutions?

XII '08 XI ‘09 XI ‘10

% BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS

0-5 % 14 17 13 47 46 50 27 27 27

5-10 % 20 21 17 41 40 44 34 39 15

10-20 % 28 26 29 9 11 17 17 15

20-30 % 13 14 8 2 1 6 7 6 8

30-40 % 4 4 4 4 4 4

40-50 % 0 0 0 4 4 4

50-60 % 4 4 4 1 1

More than 60 % 5 7 0

n.a. 13 7 25 1 1 7 3 27


XII '08 XI ‘09 XI ‘10

% BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS

0-5 % 15 18 15 18 15 18 24 28 8

5-10 % 25 21 25 21 25 21 25 25 23

10-20 % 21 24 21 24 21 24 29 32 15

20-30 % 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 5 15

30-40 % 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 1

40-50 % 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 12

50-60 % 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 1

More than 60 % 7 6 7 6 7 6 2 1 8

n.a. 14 13 14 13 14 13 7 5 19


121


XI '10 XI '10

STATE INSTITUTIONS ENTITY INSTITUTIONS

BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS

Significantly deteriorated 14 15 4 13 14 4

Slightly deteriorated 27 30 19 21 22 19

Remained the same 38 38 38 37 35 42

Slightly improved 17 16 19 24 23 23

Significantly improved 1 4 1 8


Table 3.17

Can you estimate how did the effeciency/effectiveness of domestic institutions relevant to your operations change during last 5 years?

122


a4. income and Social Welfare


Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

No income 2.4 4.6 3.9 4.5 3.9 1.7 9.2 10.6 3.9

Less than 100 BAM 1.3 2.0 1.2 3.1 4.5 3.4 5.3 1.6 0.7

101 - 300 10.1 15.1 12.6 16.0 20.9 15.4 27.8 41.6 35.1

301 - 500 14.4 15.9 17.4 14.4 9.3 17.5 24.2 7.7 26.4

501-700 BAM 12.2 15.3 11.8 11.4 20.0 18.7 14.1 14.4 11.3

701-900 BAM 10.8 6.8 13.1 10.1 7.9 11.5 5.9 1.9 11.4

901-1100 BAM 8.3 7.4 9.3 7.4 6.5 6.5 0.5 7.4

1101-1300 BAM 5.9 5.1 10.1 4.4 4.0 3.0 1.0 0.0

1301-1500 BAM 8.3 7.4 4.6 2.2 2.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.6

1501-2000 BAM 3.3 3.1 5.0 2.4 2.8 1.6 1.0 2.0 0.0

More than 2000 BAM 2.1 2.1 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.0

No answer/refusing to answer

23.7 19.1 5.0 24.0 17.3 18.2 12.6 4.1 3.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

No income 2.4 4.6 3.9 4.5 3.9 1.7 9.2 10.6 3.9

Less than 100 BAM 1.3 2.0 1.2 3.1 4.5 3.4 5.3 1.6 0.7

101 - 300 10.1 15.1 12.6 16.0 20.9 15.4 27.8 41.6 35.1

301 - 500 14.4 15.9 17.4 14.4 9.3 17.5 24.2 7.7 26.4

SUBTOTAL less than 500 28.1 37.6 35.1 38.1 38.6 38.0 66.5 61.6 66.2

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

More than 1500 5.4 5.2 11.0 2.4 2.8 2.3 1.0 3.4 0.0


Table 4.1a

Monthly household income, including all household salaries and receipts, child allowance, pensions, and any other sources of income (in %)

Table 4.1b

Monthly household income, including all household salaries and receipts, child allowance, pensions, and any other sources of income (in %) - entire Bosnia and Herzegovina


No income 3.4 4.5 3.0

Less than 100 BAM 2.1 2.9 2.0

101 - 300 12.8 18.1 14.9

301 - 500 14.6 13.4 17.9

SUBTOTAL to 500 33.0 38.9 38.9


123


Income in BAMBosniak majority areas

(BMA)Croat majority areas (CMA) Serb majority areas (SMA)

Quarter Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

No income 2.6 5.7 4.0 1.5 0.7 3.6 4.5 3.9 1.7

Less than 100 1.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.3 3.1 4.5 3.4

101 - 300 11.4 15.2 15.7 5.0 14.5 6.0 16.0 20.9 15.4

301 - 500 16.1 17.3 21.3 7.6 10.7 9.0 14.4 9.3 17.5

Subtotal do 500 31.3 40.4 42.7 15.7 27.2 18.6 38.1 38.6 38.0

Income in BAM Minorities in BMA Minorities in CMA Minorities in SMA

Quarter Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

No income 4.3 2.0 6.9 2.6 1.2 4.6 4.6 16.1 6.7

Less than 100 6.2 0.0 1.0 2.5 1.6 1.7 3.8 8.6 2.1

101 - 300 29.8 23.3 22.6 15.4 17.0 14.7 21.6 16.6 11.4

301 - 500 17.5 24.2 17.6 9.4 9.2 12.9 25.9 17.9 22.5

Subtotal to 500 57.7 49.5 48.1 29.9 29.0 33.9 56.0 59.2 42.8


Table 4.2


Table 4.3


BiH

Income in BAM

Urban Rural Men Women 18-35 36-50 51+

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

No income 3.9 2.3 5.0 3.6 5.7 2.7 3.4 3.4 4.7 2.0 4.7 4.1 4.3 3.4

Less than 100 1.9 0.3 3.7 3.2 3.0 2.0 2.9 2.0 2.0 2.5 1.8 3.9 4.2

101 - 300 14.1 11.9 21.2 17.1 15.9 15.4 20.3 14.5 8.2 6.6 6.6 8.7 31.7 27.9

301 - 500 13.0 15.2 13.7 19.9 13.2 18.7 13.6 17.2 11.7 15.1 18.0 17.5 12.4 21.1

SUBTOTAL DO 500

32.8 29.7 43.7 43.8 37.8 38.8 40.1 37.1 26.7 23.7 31.8 32.0 52.3 56.6


124



SurveyNov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

TOTAL IMPROVE 10.8 5.4 8.1 10.2 4.7 10.0 9.4 5.4 5.6 43.8 20.2 5.0

Unchanged 53.8 47.0 56.4 51.9 44.8 58.5 58.2 50.6 53.2 28.0 43.7 57.6

TOTAL WORSEN 34.5 45.9 35.1 36.7 47.8 31.5 31.6 43.7 40.2 25.4 36.1 36.7

DK/NA 1.0 1.7 0.4 1.1 2.7 0.7 0.3 1.0 2.8 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 4.4

Have the economic circumstances in your family changed over the past year (in %)?

Table 4.5

Do you expect the economic circumstances in a forthcoming year to (u %)?

Table 4.6

Do you expect the continuance of the privatization process to affect your family’s economic circumstances (%)

Part of the FBiH with the Bosniak majority (only for

the respondents from FBiH with the Bosniak majority)

Part of the FBiH with the Croat majority (only for the respondents from FBiH with

the Croat majority)

Republika Srpska (only for the respondents from RS)

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Significantly deteriorate 11.1 9.0 5.5 8.9 5.9 3.7 5.6 5.5

Somewhat deteriorate 35.1 43.7 31.0 17.1 25.8 33.3 23.7 35.1 32.3

Remain unchanged 44.8 35.0 49.4 57.1 38.9 48.0 48.8 41.7 46.6

Somewhat improve 6.1 4.2 8.2 15.9 7.6 9.6 19.1 15.3 12.7

Significantly improve 9.4 0.5 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.4

DK/NA 4.5 5.5 2.3 4.2 17.8 3.2 4.7 2.3 2.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

TOTAL DETERIORATE 35.1 54.8 40.0 22.6 34.7 39.2 27.3 40.7 37.7

Remain the same 44.8 35.0 49.4 57.1 38.9 48.0 48.8 41.7 46.6

TOTAL IMPROVE 15.6 4.6 8.4 16.1 8.6 9.6 19.1 15.3 13.1

DK/NA 4.5 5.5 2.3 4.2 17.8 3.2 4.7 2.3 2.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



Bosniak majority

areas (BMA)

Croat majority

areas (CMA)

Serb majority

areas (SMA)

QuarterNov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10


TOTAL NEGATIVELY 66.4 67.4 66.9 53.5 57.9 58.3 33.6 44.1 47.0 71.2 57.5 58.3

TOTAL POSITIVELY 10.1 7.0 11.8 11.3 17.7 9.6 40.1 16.0 13.3 11.6 12.5 9.6

DK/NA 23.5 25.6 21.3 35.2 24.4 32.1 26.3 39.9 39.7 17.2 30.1 32.1

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


125


FBiH RS Brčko District18-35

36-50

51+

QuarterNov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08 Nov 10 Nov 10 Nov 08 Nov 10 Nov 10Nov 10

Nov 10

Nov 10

TOTAL REDUCTION 14.2 22.2 12.0 8.9 18.0 21.3 2.1 3.6 3.1 16.1 13.7 14.9

TOTAL INCREASE 18.4 17.1 28.2 25.6 28.7 19.5 8.6 0.5 9.5 28.9 21.8 20.1

No change 62.8 56.8 57.2 60.6 46.4 53.6 89.3 90.8 87.4 50.2 61.8 62.1

DK/NA 4.6 3.9 2.5 4.9 6.9 5.6 5.2 4.8 2.7 2.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 4.7

Do you expect a change in the level of your household’s income over the next 6 months (in %)?

Table 4.8a

Will prices rise over the next six months (in %)?

Table 4.8b

Persons expecting the increase in prices over the next 6 months (in %)

Table 4.9a

Expect to be jobless during the next three months (in %)

Table 4.9b

Expect to be jobless during the next three months (in %)


Nov 07

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 07

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 07

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

TOTAL DECREASE 6.48 7.40 8.28 5.22 7.48 8.88 17.87 5.92 35.56 6.73 7.47

TOTAL INCREASE 89.51 78.08 71.58 82.96 83.87 74.92 54.43 76.93 100.00 0.43 6.00 27.98

No change 2.08 9.31 14.36 10.63 6.62 11.67 23.68 14.10 61.96 85.63 64.54

DK/NA 1.93 5.22 5.78 1.19 2.03 4.53 4.01 3.05 2.05 1.64

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Nov 07 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

FBiH 89.51 78.08 71.58 83.87

RS 83.87 74.92 54.43 76.93

Brčko District 100.00 0.43 6.00 27.98


FBiH RS Brčko District 18-35 36-50 51+

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 10

15.41 17.09 6.15 22.28 12.91 13.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.90 10.37 11.56 6.34 13.84 10.24


Men Women

Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10

15.91 9.35 14.77 8.16


126


FBiH RS Brčko District Urban Rural18-35

36-50

51+

SurveyNov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 10

Nov 10

Nov 10

Loss of employment

61.3 67.4 61.6 35.1 39.9 45.9 33.7 48.4 26.6 58.1 60.8 54.7 48.6 61.2 62.8 39.7

Inability to find a job

58.2 61.8 59.5 35.3 38.2 44.1 31.6 48.7 23.5 54.5 58.0 50.5 47.1 60.1 57.7 38.9

Against entity government policy

51.6 55.2 50.1 32.5 35.8 33.2 2.9 49.5 12.8 49.3 46.1 46.1 38.5 47.4 49.3 30.4

Low salaries/pensions

60.8 65.9 62.2 37.7 41.6 46.3 38.8 54.9 24.2 59.1 58.9 53.8 50.7 58.8 61.4 43.8

Threats to ethnic or civil rights

56.4 61.3 58.3 39.0 39.8 42.1 5.5 48.4 23.4 55.1 55.9 50.6 46.2 57.5 60.2 35.4

Conduct of the international community

49.8 53.7 50.8 39.9 36.5 36.2 4.2 49.3 19.1 48.8 49.4 45.5 39.3 50.9 51.5 30.1

Property recovery 54.6 60.3 58.7 41.9 36.3 36.1 33.1 51.0 29.9 51.8 55.7 49.7 43.5 54.7 57.8 35.8

Izvor: Ispitivanje javnog mnijenja za potrebe ovog projekta, PRISM Research, novembar 2010.

Table 4.10

Support the holding of public protests, strikes, or demonstrations related to (in %)

Table 4.11

Would leave BiH if opportunity arose (in %) - November 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

Table 4.12a

Trends in the average salary and the consumer price indices in the RS and FBiH (for a period from December ‘09 - October ‘10)

BiH FBiH RS 18-35 36-50 51+

Nov 07 45.58 46.41 44.21 65.90 56.42 19.54

Nov 08 40.36 40.08 41.56 63.29 39.38 17.57

Nov 09 44.02 52.10 32.69 66.54 51.92 22.22

Nov 10 47.32 46.49 49.17 67.06 56.57 20.80


RS

Month 12/09 01/10 02/10 03/10 04/10 05/10 06/10 07/10 08/10 09/10 10/10

Average net salary 788 778 772 771 786 774 789 786 785 794 779


100.1 101.6 100.1 100.2 98.9 100.1 100 99.9 99.8 100.2 101.3

FBiH

Month 12/09 01/10 02/10 03/10 04/10 05/10 06/10 07/10 08/10 09/10 10/10

Average net salary 807.67 793.94 786.33 809.05 804.55 802.89 802.32 804.15 806.37 802.1 801.88


100.1 101.1 100.2 100.1 99.6 100 99.9 100 99.8 100.5 100.6

Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, monthly statements during 2010 *Change in Consumer Price Index refers to the change compared to the previous month

127


RS FBiH

December 2009

October 2010Salary growth (Dec 09/Oct

10)

December 2009

October 2010Salary growth (Dec 09/Oct

10)

Agriculture 576.00 592.00 2.78% 654.87 700.35 6.94%

Fisheries 625.00 656.00 4.96% 552.06 521.66 -5.51%

Mining and quarries 911.00 945.00 3.73% 791.04 777.92 -1.66%

Manufacturing 526.00 557.00 5.89% 572.96 573.46 0.09%

Electricity, gas and water –production and distribution

935.00 934.00 -0.11% 1301.58 1320.14 1.43%

Construction – civil works 549.00 580.00 5.65% 514.32 515.14 0.16%

Wholesale and retail. motor vehicle repairs and personal or household goods

539.00 598.00 10.95% 549.39 560.26 1.98%

Hotels and restaurants 495.00 528.00 6.67% 540.96 539.24 -0.32%

Transport, warehousing and communications

759.00 784.00 3.29% 973.10 932.28 -4.19%

Financial mediation 1263.00 1213.00 -3.96% 1298.35 1292.92 -0.42%

Activities related to property renting and business activities

633.00 630.00 -0.47% 794.56 757.56 -4.66%

Government administration, defence, mandatory social insurance

1095.00 1030.00 -5.94% 1122.77 1125.56 0.25%

Education 907.00 837.00 -7.72% 835.96 836.60 0.08%

Healthcare and social work 1000.00 1018.00 1.80% 1004.46 961.35 -4.29%

Other communal, social or personal services

651.00 623.00 -4.30% 768.32 761.92 -0.83%

TOTAL average 788.00 779.00 -1.14% 807.67 801.88 -0.72%

Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, November 2010

Table 4.12b

Trends in the average salary per sector in the RS and FBiH - December 2009 and October 2010

Table 4.12c

Average pension trends in RS and FBiH at the monthly level (December 09 - November 10)

12/09 01/10 02/10 03/10 04/10 05/10 06/10 07/10 08/10 09/10 10/10 11/10

RS 320.11 320.85 318.69 318.73 319.16 319.44 319.62 319.80 319.88 320.11 320.31 320.22

FBIH 342.90 342.01 343.03 342.77 341.13 342.00 341.41 339.76 339.78 339.08 338.95 338.68


128


FBiH RS

December 2009 November 2010 December 2009 November 2010

Minimum pension 296.00 296.36 160.00 160.00

Maximum pension 1975.00 1975.71 1564.56 1564.00

Average pension 342.90 338.68 320.11 320.22


Table 4.12d

Pension data for RS and FBiH, December 2009 and November 2010

Table 4.13

Consumer Price Index (CPI) by category (November 2010)

RS FBiH

XI 2010 / X 2010

I-XI 2010/ I-XI 2009

XI 2010/ XI 2009

XI 2010 / X 2010

I-XI 2010/ I-XI 2009

XI 2010/ XI 2009

Total 100.2 102.4 102.4 100.4 101.6 102.3

Food and non alcoholic beverages 100.4 98.9 101.3 100.8 98.9 102.9

Alcohol and tobacco 100.0 121.3 112.5 99.7 119.4 111.2

Clothes and footwear 99.9 96.7 96.8 99.9 94.9 92.4

Accommodation, water, electricity, gas and other fuels

100.1 104.2 102.7 100.8 101.9 101.6

Furniture, household goods and regular maintenance

100.0 99.7 100.1 100.2 100.3 101.7

Health 99.9 103.0 102.1 100.0 100.6 99.0

Transport 100.6 106.6 104.4 100.0 107.3 104.0

Communication 100.0 108.3 108.4 100.0 106.3 106.3

Leisure and culture 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.1 101.4 101.4

Education 100.0 105.5 104.5 100.0 100.6 100.9

Restaurants and hotels 100.0 100.3 100.7 100.0 101.8 100.7

Other goods and services 99.8 100.7 100.1 100.0 100.7 100.7

Source: Republic Statistics Office of RS, Federal Statistics Office of FBiH, December 2010

129


FBiH RS

Quarter Nov 07 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 07 Nov 08 Nov 09 Nov 10

FOOD (INCLUDING COFFEE AND DRINKS)

29.8 40.2 37.6 36.7 33.0 36.7 42.7 34.3

CLOTHES AND FOOTWARE 6.4 5.5 6.3 7.0 7.1 6.8 7.6 5.8

CIGARETTES/TOBACCO 5.3 4.0 4.3 5.2 5.1 3.8 4.0 3.4

PERSONAL HYGENE ITEMS 6.2 6.0 7.2 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.5 5.6

FUEL AND CAR MAINTENANCE 6.1 5.5 7.1 7.4 5.9 6.2 3.5 6.3

TRANSPORTATION – BUS AND TRAM

2.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.7

KINDERGARTEN/CHILD CARE 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.5

DEBT REPAYMENT 4.2 5.9 3.0 4.5 4.0 3.7 2.5 2.9

WORKS AND HOUSE REPAIRS 3.3 1.9 2.5 3.1 2.8 2.4 0.9 1.7

MEDICATIONS AND TREATMENT 7.0 5.0 6.0 4.2 6.3 4.9 4.1 3.6

VACATION 3.4 2.4 1.9 3.5 4.2 2.8 1.6 3.0

CHILDREN'S EDUCATION 4.6 3.0 4.9 3.9 4.7 3.4 1.8 2.9

ELECTRICITY 8.6 6.3 7.7 7.6 9.8 7.8 6.9 8.3

WATER 3.6 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.4 1.5 2.0 2.6

TELEPHONE 6.1 4.3 4.1 4.6 5.1 4.7 4.1 5.9

GAS 1.5 0.2 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.3


Table 4.14

Average household costs, itemised (in %)

Table 4.15

Number of households with durable consumer goods (in %)

Table 4.16

Household status - self-described (%)

FBiH RS


Telephone 81.47 83.22 79.71 75.86 63.85 71.41 65.56 75.15

Mobile phone 63.65 74.27 75.60 83.34 64.85 65.23 73.66 82.23

Dial-up access to the Internet at home

15.28 20.78 19.08 39.48 8.67 14.22 13.28 26.85

Car 50.86 53.08 52.82 62.80 48.72 54.59 48.65 58.33



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Barely surviving 8.1 14.9 11.4 5.1 8.3 9.4 11.5 23.7 13.1 25.7 28.5 20.9

Well below average 11.4 12.1 20.1 9.2 11.6 20.6 14.3 11.6 16.1 17.3 27.7 42.7

Somewhat below average 24.3 22.0 19.9 24.4 25.1 15.5 24.1 17.7 28.5 24.4 17.6 7.0

TOTAL below average 43.8 49.0 51.5 38.7 45.0 45.4 49.9 53.0 57.7 67.4 73.7 70.6


130


Urban RuralBosniak

majority areasCroat majority

areasSerb majority

areas

Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10

Barely surviving 11.3 6.7 17.7 14.8 8.2 11.6 8.7 4.6 23.7 13.1

Well below average

10.8 15.6 13.0 23.3 11.7 14.1 11.4 34.6 11.6 16.1

A bit below average

17.4 21.2 25.5 19.0 24.3 17.0 28.1 12.1 17.7 28.5

TOTAL below average

39.6 43.5 56.2 57.1 44.1 42.7 48.2 51.3 53.0 57.7


Table 4.17

Household status - self-described (%)

Table 4.18Survey wave Chain index Composite index

Jan 03 97.96 48

Jul 03 100.00 48

Sep 03 100.00 48

Nov 03 97.92 47

Feb 04 100.00 47

Jun 04 100.00 47

Sep 04 104.26 49

Nov 04 102.04 50

Feb 05 92.00 46

Jun 05 97.83 45

Sep05 93.33 42

Nov05 102.38 43

Apr 06 104.65 45

Jun 06 102.22 46

Sep 06 100.00 46

Nov 06 102.17 47

Apr 07 104.26 49

Sep 07 91.84 45

Nov 07 95.56 43

Mar 08 106.98 46

Jun 08 97.83 45

Oct 08 102.22 46

Nov 08 100.00 46

Nov 09 100.00 46

Nov 10 100 46


131


a5. Social Exclusion

Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban 36 39.6

Rural 25.3 30.2

Male 36.6 40.1

Female 23.4 28.4

18-35 35.6 42.8

36-50 51.6 47.9

50+ 14.6 15.4


Table 5.1

Levels of paid employment – What is your current employment status?

Table 5.2

Do you think you could lose your job in the next three months?

Table 5.3

% of low trust: Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?

Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban

Rural

Male 15.9 9.4

Female 14.8 8.2

18-35 19.9 10.4

36-50 11.6 6.3

50+ 13.8 10.2


(Scale of 1 to 10: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = low trust)

Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban 65.2 65.6

Rural 65.9 62.2

Male 63.9 65

Female 67.4 62.1

18-35 59.6 62.9

36-50 67.9 62.6

50+ 69.1 64.9


132


(Scale of 1 to 10: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = dissatisfied)

Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban 28.8 24.6

Rural 38.6 33.9

Male 34.6 31.1

Female 34.1 29.1

18-35 27.1 18.1

36-50 33.7 31.6

50+ 40.4 41


Table 5.4

% of dissatisfied respondents: All things considered, how satisfied would you say you are with your life these days?

Table 5.5

Self-assessed health as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’

Table 5.6

Reported long-standing illness or disability

Urban 19.9

Rural 25.5

Male 22.9

Female 23.4

18-35 5.6

36-50 14.5

50+ 46.8


Urban 13.8

Rural 11.6

Male 13.5

Female 11.6

18-35 2.6

36-50 9.2

50+ 24.7


133


Nov-08 Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban 31.9 45.5 35.8

Rural 36.4 46.1 34.5

Male 32.5 45.3 35.7

Female 36.2 46.4 34.5

18-35 27.8 39.8 26.7

36-50 35.8 52.6 39.9

50+ 40.3 47.1 40.1


Table 5.7

% of respondents stating that the economic situation of their family has worsened.

Table 5.8

% expectation that economic situation will worsen

Table 5.9

% description of household category as ‘on the verge of existence’ and ‘way below average’

Nov-08 Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban 25.8 28 23.8

Rural 23.5 29.9 27.7

Male 22.2 31.5 23.1

Female 26.6 26.6 28.9

18-35 18.5 23.4 26.3

36-50 26.1 29.1 25

50+ 29.6 33.6 26.7


Nov-09 Nov-10

Urban 22.1 22.3

Rural 30.7 38.1

Male 28.4 33.5

Female 25.6 29.7

18-35 14.2 18.5

36-50 24.8 30.1

50+ 38.1 45.8


134


a6. inter-ethnic relations



% % % % % %

No – never 91.4 95.8 84.9 89.6 94.2 97.8

Yes – several times 4.3 1.2 7.5 8.1 0.6 0.8

Yes – once 0.7 1.1 3.3 2.3 1.2 0.3

Yes – often 0.6 2.0 2.6 - 0.5 0.6

DK/NA 2.9 - 1.8 - 3.5 0.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 6.1

Have you or anyone you live with been subjected to verbal harassment or physical attack solely due to your ethnicity over the past year?

Table 6.2

To what extent do you agree/disagree that members of minority peoples, who lived in this municipality before the war, should return to their homes?

Table 6.3

How proud are you of belonging to your ethnic group?


Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

TOTAL DISAGREE 7.8 4.8 14.1 12.2 13.9 9.3

TOTAL AGREE 90.0 94.4 77.3 85.3 82.6 87.0

DK/NA 2.2 0.8 8.6 2.5 3.6 3.7

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Very proud 75.0 90.2 82.0 85.1 73.0 76.5

Somewhat 13.0 6.5 11.6 9.4 12.9 13.9

Not very 4.5 1.4 1.8 5.0 7.3 2.0

Not at all 3.1 0.3 0.2 - 3.9 1.0

Not important 3.2 1.2 2.0 0.5 2.5 4.2

Don't know 1.3 - 0.9 - 0.1 0.3

No answer - 0.3 1.5 - 0.3 2.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


135


Age Gender

18 - 35 36 - 50 Over 50 Men Women

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Very proud 78.2 86.1 72.1 80.5 75.7 83.5 76.5 86.0 75.0 81.2

Somewhat 10.1 10.9 14.3 9.4 13.4 8.4 12.1 8.3 12.7 11.0

Not very 4.2 1.8 6.0 5.3 5.5 1.0 5.5 1.8 4.8 3.1

Not at all 3.4 0.2 2.4 1.2 2.8 0.3 2.7 0.4 3.2 0.6

Not important 2.4 0.7 .6 1.6 2.4 4.0 2.1 1.6 3.3 2.7

Don't know 1.2 0.3 1.4 1.2 - 0.9 1.0 1.3 0.5 0.2

NA 0.5 - 0.2 0.9 0.2 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.5 1.2

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 6.4

How proud are you of belonging to your ethnic group?

Table 6.5

How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Table 6.6

Would you move to a town where the majority were of an ethnic group you do not belong to for better job prospects?

Bosniaks Croats Serbs Urban Rural

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Very proud 62.7 88.0 55.4 31.0 16.0 17.9 45.6 56.2 42.7 47.0

Somewhat 18.7 8.5 22.6 35.6 17.8 20.3 20.6 18.1 17.8 17.0

Not very 6.8 1.5 7.1 7.9 24.1 18.5 14.4 7.0 12.7 10.6

Not at all 7.3 1.1 6.9 5.8 20.6 18.3 9.9 6.9 14.0 9.8

Not important 3.0 0.8 6.1 14.4 18.4 19.5 7.7 9.2 10.5 11.9

Don't know 1.3 - 0.9 5.3 0.9 2.1 1.6 2.1 0.6 2.0

No answer 0.2 - 1.0 - 2.2 3.4 0.2 0.5 1.8 1.8

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

YES 61.5 45.3 30.4 28.9 28.0 37.0

NO 32.9 45.7 55.3 66.5 62.7 49.9

DK/NA 5.5 9.0 14.3 4.6 9.3 13.1

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


136


Age Area Gender

18 - 35 36 - 50 50 + Urban Rural Men Women

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

Nov 2009

%

Nov 2010

%

YES 56.8 48.7 46.7 41.9 31.9 25.9 42.2 47.3 44.8 32.2 44.0 41.6 43.4 35.6

NO 35.6 40.3 44.7 49.9 60.2 65.1 49.1 46.5 47.6 55.8 49.8. 47.8 46.8 55.9

DK/NA 7.6 11.0 8.6 8.3 8.0 9.1 8.7 6.2 7.5 12.0 6.2 10.6 9.8 8.6

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 6.7

Would you move to a town where the majority were of an ethnic group you do not belong to for better job prospects?

Table 6.8

Do you think war might break out if EUFOR withdraw?

Table 6.9

Is it acceptable for you...


Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

YES 35.9 22.6 15.3 2.9 19.1 8.0

NO 53.4 69.9 69.4 94.3 73.1 80.5

DK/NA 10.7 7.5 15.3 2.8 7.9 11.5

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Croats Serbs

2009%

2010%

2009%

2010%

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

To have Bosniaks living in your neighbourhood 64.5 28.3 87.0 11.6 73.3 24.8 69.6 29.3

To have Bosniak children going into the same school as your children

64.9 28.1 72.4 27.6 72.5 25.5 70.5 28.0

For a member of your family to marry a Bosniak 36.1 53.9 25.0 73.9 33.2 58.0 35.3 57.7


137


Bosniaks Serbs

2009%

2010%

2009%

2010%


To have Croats living in your neighbourhood 97.2 2.4 98.1 1.8 73.3 24.8 73.9 25.4

To have Croat children going into the same school as your children

95.6 4.0 98.1 1.6 72.6 25.5 72.4 25.6

For a member of your family to marry a Croat 42.2 54.4 37.1 60.8 36.6 54.3 39.0 55.4


Table 6.10


Table 6.11


Table 6.12

How would you rate the political measures taken by the OHR, the Office of the High Representative?

Bosniaks Croats

2009%

2010%

2009%

2010%


To have Serbs living in your neighbourhood 94.8 4.6 96.3 3.5 63.0 29.6 90.2 9.8

To have Serb children going into the same school as your children

93.3 6.1 96.5 3.1 63.5 28.9 78.1 21.9

For a member of your family to marry a Serb 35.1 61.3 34.6 63.3 31.9 56.1 43.7 52.8



Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

TOTAL POSITIVELY 71.1 57.1 38.2 61.6 26.1 17.5

TOTAL NEGATIVELY 24.2 39.4 42.0 37.0 64.9 60.6

DK/NA 4.7 3.5 19.7 1.4 8.9 22.0

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


138



Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

YES 59.5 83.7 49.5 34.8 37.9 57.0

NO 21.0 8.8 25.4 60.4 42.1 26.7

NOT APPLICABLE 1.4 0.3 0.7 - 0.2 -

NEITHER YES NOR NO

10.9 4.3 14.1 4.9 15.6 12.3

DK/NA 7.3 2.8 10.2 - 4.2 3.9

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 6.13

Do you approve or disapprove of the job being done by the European Union in BiH?

Table 6.14

Do you approve or disapprove of the job being done by USA in BiH?


Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

Nov 2009%

Nov 2010%

YES 53.3 64.6 43.8 34.4 33.4 38.8

NO 28.2 22.3 28.9 58.0 48.7 44.7

NOT APPLICABLE 1.7 0.8 0.8 - 0.2 -

NEITHER YES NOR NO

13.4 7.3 17.9 7.6 15.0 11.2

DK/NA 3.5 5.0 8.6 - 2.7 5.3

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


139


a7. Personal and Public Security


Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10



0.49 0.47 0.82 0.63 0.60 1.23 0.33 0.30 0.32


Car theft 0.22 0.99 0.87 0.38 1.71 1.03 0.75

Theft of other valuables... 1.79 2.85 3.86 1.57 3.99 4.88 1.42 1.02 2.43 12.52 4.73 3.16

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for this project by Prism Research. November 2010

Table 7.1a

During the past three months have you, a family member or your family as a whole suffered... (%)

Table 7.1b


Table 7.1c


Urban Rural Men Women


A burglary at home 2.85 1.19 1.92 2.63 1.67 2.36 2.98 1.71


0.71 0.79 0.28 0.84 0.37 0.80 0.56 0.83

Wallet being stolen 4.51 2.97 3.31 1.72 3.77 2.03 3.89 2.45

Car theft 1.28 0.73 0.77 0.97 1.57 0.62 0.43 1.11

Theft of other valuables... 3.66 3.63 2.23 4.02 2.85 3.97 2.85 3.75


18-35 36-50 51+




1.06 0.95 0.45 0.23 0.64 1.86 0.10 0.43


Car theft 0.17 0.89 1.10 0.41 2.31 1.05 0.14 0.41 0.51

Theft of other valuables... 1.60 2.96 3.22 1.17 3.41 4.20 2.42 2.50 4.26


140


Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas


A burglary at home 1.53 4.06 3.54 1.14 2.19 0.50 1.74


0.48 0.22 1.79 1.19 2.03 0.33 0.30 0.32


Car theft 0.08 1.77 1.51 1.55 1.50 0.75


1.24 3.80 5.66 2.85 4.69 3.17 1.42 1.02 2.43

Minorities in BMA Minorities in CMA Minorities in SMA




2.36 1.50 3.48 0.68 3.36

Wallet being stolen 1.50 1.00 7.59 3.68 2.57 4.41 0.55 0.96

Car theft 2.69 1.16 2.99 1.80 1.04 10.00


0.33 6.51 4.48 3.56 8.64 0.55 1.39


Table 7.1d


Table 7.2a

During the past three months, have you, or a member of your close family sought police assistance for any reason? (%)

Table 7.2b



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Yes 4.84 8.04 5.18 5.58 10.73 6.70 3.76 4.21 3.10 4.20 5.64 3.71

No 94.27 91.11 94.44 92.90 88.14 92.79 96.24 95.44 96.65 95.80 92.49 96.29

DK/NA 0.89 0.85 0.38 1.52 1.12 0.51 0.35 0.25 1.88

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00




Yes 11.4 6.3 5.5 4.4 6.5 4.0 9.5 6.3

No 87.9 93.0 93.6 95.5 92.9 95.4 89.3 93.5

DK/NA 0.73 0.70 0.94 0.16 0.55 0.60 1.14 0.18

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


141




Yes 5.84 10.69 7.29 4.57 10.87 5.41 3.76 4.21 3.10

No 92.53 88.47 91.96 94.33 86.93 94.59 96.24 95.44 96.65

DK/NA 1.63 0.84 0.75 1.10 2.20 0.35 0.25

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00



Yes 2.25 7.39 8.03 2.18 8.28 8.88 1.80 13.09 11.88

No 96.55 91.10 91.97 94.23 88.73 91.12 98.20 86.29 88.12

DK/NA 1.20 1.51 3.59 2.99 0.62

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Table 7.2c


Table 7.2d


Table 7.3a

How satisfied or unsatisfied were you with what the police did? (%)

18-35 36-50 50+


Yes 8.36 4.43 7.03 6.31 8.32 5.11

No 91.27 95.57 92.97 93.01 90.15 94.33

DK/NA 0.38 0.68 1.52 0.56

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Not satisfied at all 26.66 15.09 28.66 35.55 9.40 27.97 3.73 37.31 20.93 67.01 0.00 85.12

Quite dissatisfied 26.61 35.34 32.40 33.50 36.18 34.80 12.33 32.46 27.70 10.28 33.33 14.88

Quite satisfied 32.49 29.48 36.40 16.10 32.18 33.76 70.03 22.39 51.37 22.71 0.00 0.00

Completely satisfied 10.45 16.80 2.54 9.24 17.96 3.46 13.91 7.84 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00

DK/NA 3.79 3.29 0.00 5.60 4.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


142



Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 10 Nov 10 Nov 10

Not satisfied at all 13.37 21.45 17.86 36.06 9.18 20.28 19.18 33.71 41.16 34.18 12.73

Quite dissatisfied 29.80 38.04 44.25 26.62 30.66 41.99 38.58 26.62 13.80 37.60 44.01

Quite satisfied 31.44 37.58 26.32 35.18 40.21 34.93 22.05 37.28 45.04 20.40 43.26

Completely satisfied

21.38 2.94 9.45 2.14 17.49 2.81 16.33 2.38 0.00 7.83 0.00

DK/NA 4.01 2.12 0.00 2.45 0.00 3.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Table 7.3b


Table 7.3c




Not satisfied at all 9.18 30.25 10.22 21.33 37.31 20.93

Quite dissatisfied 37.41 36.91 31.67 28.67 32.46 27.70

Quite satisfied 31.60 28.19 34.33 50.00 22.39 51.37

Completely satisfied 21.81 4.65 3.88 0.00 7.84 0.00

DK/NA 19.90

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00



Not satisfied at all 38.88 27.88 16.43 92.67

Quite dissatisfied 18.05 71.33 44.05 51.79 7.33 15.16

Quite satisfied 22.56 28.07 27.30 60.35

Completely satisfied 20.51 28.67 4.48 24.49

DK/NA

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


143




Yes 1.23 0.85 1.90 0.99 0.18 0.57 1.88 1.29

No 97.44 98.08 96.27 98.00 99.28 98.21 96.24 98.16

DK/NA 1.33 1.07 1.84 1.02 0.55 1.22 1.88 0.55

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Table 7.4a

During the past three months have you or a close family member been taken to the police station without a warrant? (%)

Table 7.4b

During the past three months have you or a close family member been taken to the police station without a warrant? (%) - November 2010

Table 7.4c

During the past three months have you or a close family member been taken to the police station without a warrant? (%)


Yes 0.80 0.88 0.40 1.27 1.08 1.23

No 97.61 98.43 99.06 97.16 98.11 98.26 97.92

DK/NA 1.59 0.70 0.54 1.57 0.81 1.74 0.85

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00




Yes 1.50 0.91 3.38 1.15 0.18 0.57

No 97.19 98.32 92.82 97.29 99.28 98.21

DK/NA 1.31 0.77 3.80 1.55 0.55 1.22

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00



Yes 2.18 1.21 0.62 1.92

No 95.97 100.00 94.23 100.00 98.42 92.22

DK/NA 1.85 4.57 0.96 5.87

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


144



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Yes 12.79 15.17 4.26 6.24 11.82 2.17 10.71 14.80 3.40 7.42 11.77 2.69

No 86.06 78.69 94.34 92.11 84.44 96.61 88.37 79.00 95.26 90.64 84.85 96.04

DK/NA 1.15 6.14 1.41 1.65 3.74 1.23 0.92 6.20 1.34 1.93 3.38 1.27

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Table 7.5b

During the past six months have you experienced or witnessed a situation where the police clearly abused their authorities (i.e. dealing with traffic, regulating public protests, in an investigation, etc.) (%)

Table 7.5c


18-35 35-50 50+


Yes 13.00 15.30 4.89 8.12 14.31 1.61 5.60 11.18 2.22

No 85.07 82.72 93.98 90.27 84.57 96.46 93.60 80.09 96.76

DK/NA 1.94 1.97 1.13 1.61 1.12 1.93 0.81 8.73 1.02

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Table 7.5a




Yes 13.28 3.04 11.55 2.06 16.84 4.96

No 81.94 95.66 86.46 97.20 74.14 92.90 96.24 98.71

DK/NA 4.78 1.30 1.99 0.74 9.02 2.14 3.76 1.29

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


145



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

POLI

CE

Yes 62.5 53.0 72.5 51.2 38.4 67.0 77.2 72.1 78.4 97.9 88.0 88.7

No 21.4 34.6 19.8 29.9 47.7 26.5 9.7 17.3 11.0 2.1 6.1 10.8

Not applicable

0.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.2


6.1 9.4 6.4 6.3 10.2 5.6 6.3 8.9 8.6 0.5

DK/NA 10.0 2.4 1.2 12.6 2.8 0.8 6.8 1.5 2.0 5.4 0.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

JUD

ICIA

RY

Yes 56.2 47.3 66.5 48.0 34.5 62.6 66.1 63.1 69.0 95.1 91.7 89.8

No 26.9 38.8 24.3 32.7 49.8 29.8 19.8 24.7 18.2 2.1 5.9 9.5

Not applicable

0.3 0.4 0.2


6.3 11.1 7.8 6.6 12.5 6.4 6.2 9.7 11.1 0.5

DK/NA 10.6 2.6 1.4 12.8 2.9 1.2 7.9 2.2 1.7 2.8 1.9 0.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EUPM

Yes 53.8 55.9 62.0 61.6 38.9 44.0 88.2 79.8

No 28.5 27.8 21.3 25.2 41.0 34.7 4.5 7.8

Not applicable

0.6 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.4


13.2 10.4 11.5 7.4 16.3 15.5 5.2 6.7

DK/NA 4.0 5.4 4.5 5.0 3.4 5.9 2.2 5.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 7.6a

Do you approve or disapprove of the work of... ? (%)

146



Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 08

Nov 09

Nov 10

POLI

CE

Yes 59.8 68.5 47.7 75.4 56.2 71.1 49.8 73.9 74.5 65.5 75.6

No 29.9 23.1 38.3 17.4 32.3 21.8 36.9 17.8 18.3 23.4 18.7

Not applicable

0.4 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.3


7.9 7.4 10.6 5.8 8.3 6.5 10.6 6.3 5.8 10.0 4.5

DK/NA 2.0 1.1 2.6 1.4 2.5 0.6 2.2 1.8 1.5 0.8 1.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

JUD

ICIA

RY

Yes 53.4 63.0 42.6 69.0 48.8 64.0 45.8 69.0 71.2 62.3 64.8

No 34.0 27.4 42.4 22.1 37.7 27.1 39.8 21.6 20.1 27.4 26.4

Not applicable

0.5 0.2 0.4


10.2 8.6 11.7 7.2 10.0 8.2 12.1 7.4 7.3 9.9 6.8

DK/NA 2.4 1.0 2.7 1.7 3.2 0.7 2.0 2.0 1.4 0.4 2.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EUPM

Yes 59.6 54.8 49.3 56.7 51.7 53.6 55.7 58.2 59.3 54.1 54.1

No 21.7 28.1 33.7 27.5 30.2 30.0 26.8 25.7 26.8 29.0 27.6

Not applicable

0.3 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5


14.7 11.3 12.0 9.8 12.5 12.0 13.9 9.0 9.6 11.9 10.3

DK/NA 3.6 4.9 4.3 5.7 4.9 3.9 3.2 6.7 4.2 4.0 7.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 7.6b


147




POLI

CE

Yes 53.5 39.8 73.7 42.2 33.3 52.5 77.2 72.1 78.4

No 32.7 49.2 19.7 19.0 41.9 41.1 9.7 17.3 11.0

Not applicable

0.9 0.2 1.1 0.2


3.6 8.5 5.3 16.9 16.8 6.4 6.3 8.9 8.6

DK/NA 10.2 1.7 1.1 21.9 6.9 6.8 1.5 2.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

JUD

ICIA

RY

Yes 49.9 34.6 68.4 40.7 34.2 50.1 66.1 63.1 69.0

No 35.6 52.5 23.5 21.3 39.5 43.6 19.8 24.7 18.2

Not applicable

0.2 1.1 0.2


4.0 11.1 6.3 16.6 17.6 6.4 6.2 9.7 11.1

DK/NA 10.5 1.6 1.8 21.4 7.6 7.9 2.2 1.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EUPM

Yes 64.9 72.5 51.2 38.0 38.9 44.0

No 20.2 12.6 25.3 52.2 41.0 34.7

Not applicable

0.6 1.3 0.7 0.4


10.9 6.6 13.7 9.2 16.3 15.5

DK/NA 3.3 7.0 9.0 0.6 3.4 5.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Table 7.6c


148


Urban Rural 18-35 36-50 50+

Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10 Nov 09 Nov 10

POLI

CE

Not at all 2.08 3.15 3.13 2.33 1.92 0.94 3.53 4.52 2.84 3.09

Not much 19.07 14.54 10.78 14.21 16.89 13.61 9.30 11.83 14.84 16.69

To some degree

20.81 26.10 18.71 23.81 18.93 26.67 23.75 25.51 18.07 22.37

Fairly 24.71 34.42 27.21 31.91 24.40 36.26 26.75 28.85 27.19 32.77

Very 33.33 21.79 40.17 27.73 37.87 22.52 36.67 29.30 37.05 25.09

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

JUD

ICIA

RY

Not at all 1.67 4.33 2.08 3.33 2.04 3.52 1.19 6.55 2.16 1.91

Not much 16.21 11.84 11.00 11.81 15.68 10.74 7.71 8.71 14.01 15.28

To some degree

19.12 27.79 16.52 24.94 16.44 29.13 26.52 29.11 14.09 20.62

Fairly 25.81 32.63 25.57 31.02 23.32 33.58 24.11 26.33 28.28 33.89

Very 37.20 23.41 44.83 28.90 42.52 23.03 40.48 29.30 41.46 28.29

TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00


Table 7.7a

How widespread do you think corruption, that is bribery or abuse of office for private purposes, is in these institutions? (%)

149



Aug 02 98.86 87

Oct 02 101.15 88

Jan 03 100.00 88

Jul 03 100.00 88

Sep 03 97.73 86

Nov 03 100.00 86

Feb 04 101.16 87

Jun 04 101.15 88

Sep 04 97.73 86

Nov 04 101.16 87

Feb 05 101.15 88

Jun 05 97.73 86

Sep 05 101.16 87

Nov 05 98.85 86

Apr 06 100.00 86

Jun 06 98.84 85

Sep 06 103.53 88

Nov 06 97.73 86

Apr 07 102.33 88

Sep 07 97.73 86

Nov 07 102.33 88

Mar 08 96.59 85

Jun 08 101.18 86

Oct 08 102.33 88

Nov 08 100.00 88

Nov 09 98.86 87

Nov 10 100.00 87


Table 7.8

How widespread do you think corruption, that is bribery or abuse of office for private purposes, is in these institutions? (%)

150


Early warning system2010

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Resident Representative office in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Maršala Tita 4871000 SarajevoBosnia and Herzegovina

Tel: +387 (33) 563 800, 801Fax: +387 (33) 552 330

e-mail: [email protected]

early warning system 2010

Documents

r n i n g s y s t e

undp bih

experience of undp

number of reports

number of unemployed

number of households

early warning systemthe

global development network