Life in Transition Survey 2006 - Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan...and 25 more

Abstract
---------------------------

The transition from socialism to a market economy has transformed the lives of many people. What are people's perceptions and attitudes to transition? What are the current attitudes to market reforms and political institutions?

To analyze these issues, the EBRD and the World Bank have jointly conducted the comprehensive, region-wide "Life in Transition Survey" (LiTS), which combines traditional household survey features with questions about respondents' attitudes and is carried out through two-stage sampling with a random selection of households and respondents.

The LiTS assesses the impact of transition on people through their personal and professional experiences during the first 15 years of transition. LiTS attempts to understand how these personal experiences of transition relate to people’s attitudes toward market and political reforms, as well as their priorities for the future.

The main objective of the LiTS was to build on existing studies to provide a comprehensive assessment of relationships among life satisfaction and living standards, poverty and inequality, trust in state institutions, satisfaction with public services, attitudes to a market economy and democracy and to provide valuable insights into how transition has affected the lives of people across a region comprising 16 countries in Central and Eastern Europe (“CEE”) and 11 in the Commonwealth of Independent State (“CIS”). Turkey and Mongolia were also included in the survey.

Geographic coverage
---------------------------

The LITS was to be implemented in the following 29 countries: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Georgia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Kind of data
---------------------------

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure
---------------------------

A total of 1,000 face-to-face household interviews per country were to be conducted, with adult (18 years and over) occupants and with no upper limit for age. The sample was to be nationally representative. The EBRD’s preferred procedure was a two stage sampling method, with census enumeration areas (CEA) as primary sampling units and households as secondary sampling units. To the extent possible, the EBRD wished the sampling procedure to apply no more than 2 stages.

The first stage of selection was to use as a sampling frame the list of CEA's generated by the most recent census. Ideally, 50 primary sampling units (PSU's) were to be selected from that sample frame, with probability proportional to size (PPS), using as a measure of size either the population, or the number of households.

The second sampling stage was to select households within each of the primary sampling units, using as a sampling frame a specially developed list of all households in each of the selected PSU's defined above. Households to be interviewed were to be selected from that list by systematic, equal probability sampling. Twenty households were to be selected in each of the 50 PSU's.

The individuals to be interviewed in each household were to be selected at random, within each of the selected households, with no substitution if possible.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAMPLE FRAME OF PSU’s

In each country we established the most recent sample frame of PSU’s which would best serve the purposes of the LITS sampling methodology. Details of the PSU sample frames in each country are shown in table 1 (page 10) of the survey report.

In the cases of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Serbia and Uzbekistan, CEA’s were used. In Croatia we also used CEA’s but in this case, because the CEA’s were very small and we would not have been able to complete the targeted number of interviews within each PSU, we merged together adjoining CEA’s and constructed a sample of 1,732 Merged Enumeration Areas. The same was the case in Montenegro.

In Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Slovak Republic we used Eurostat’s NUTS area classification system.

[NOTE: The NUTS (from the French "Nomenclature des territoriales statistiques" or in English ("Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics"), is a uniform and consistent system that runs on five different NUTS levels and is widely used for EU surveys including the Eurobarometer (a comparable survey to the Life in Transition). As a hierarchical system, NUTS subdivides the territory of the country into a defined number of regions on NUTS 1 level (population 3-7 million), NUTS 2 level (800,000-3 million) and NUTS 3 level (150,000-800,000). At a more detailed level NUTS 3 is subdivided into smaller units (districts and municipalities). These are called "Local Administrative Units" (LAU). The LAU is further divided into upper LAU (LAU1 - formerly NUTS 4) and LAU 2 (formerly NUTS 5).]

Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Moldova and Romania used the electoral register as the basis for the PSU sample frame. In the other cases, the PSU sample frame was chosen using either local geographical or administrative and territorial classification systems. The total number of PSU sample frames per country varied from 182 in the case of Mongolia to over 48,000 in the case of Turkey. To ensure the safety of our fieldworkers, we excluded from the sample frame PSU’s territories (in countries such as Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Russia, etc) in which there was conflict and political instability. We have also excluded areas which were not easily accessible due to their terrain or were sparsely populated.

In the majority of cases, the source for this information was the national statistical body for the country in question, or the relevant central electoral committee. In establishing the sample frames and to the extent possible, we tried to maintain a uniform measure of size namely, the population aged 18 years and over which was of more pertinence to the LITS methodology. Where the PSU was based on CEA’s, the measure was usually the total population, whereas the electoral register provided data on the population aged 18 years old and above, the normal voting age in all sampled countries. Although the NUTS classification provided data on the total population, we filtered, where possible, the information and used as a measure of size the population aged 18 and above. The other classification systems used usually measure the total population of a country. However, in the case of Azerbaijan, which used CEA’s, and Slovenia, where a classification system based on administrative and territorial areas was employed, the measure of size was the number of households in each PSU.

The accuracy of the PSU information was dependent, to a large extent, on how recently the data has been collected. Where the data were collected recently then the information could be considered as relatively accurate. However, in some countries we believed that more recent information was available, but because the relevant authorities were not prepared to share this with us citing secrecy reasons, we had no alternative than to use less up to date data. In some countries the age of the data available makes the figures less certain. An obvious case in point is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the latest available figures date back to 1991, before the Balkan wars. The population figures available take no account of the casualties suffered among the civilian population, resulting displacement and subsequent migration of people.

Equally there have been cases where countries have experienced economic migration in recent years, as in the case of those countries that acceded to the European Union in May, 2004, such as Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states, or to other countries within the region e.g. Armenians to Russia, Albanians to Greece and Italy; the available figures may not accurately reflect this. And, as most economic migrants tend to be men, the actual proportion of females in a population was, in many cases, higher than the available statistics would suggest. People migration in recent years has also occurred from rural to urban areas in Albania and the majority of the Asian Republics, as well as in Mongolia on a continuous basis but in this case, because of the nomadic population of the country.

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

Brief Overview

In broad terms the following sampling methodology was employed:
· From the sample frame of PSU’s we selected 50 units
· Within each selected PSU, we sampled 20 households, resulting in 1,000 interviews per country
· Within each household we sampled 1 and sometimes 2 respondents
The sampling procedures were designed to leave no free choice to the interviewers. Details on each of the above steps as well as country specific procedures adapted to suit the availability, depth and quality of the PSU information and local operational issues are described in the following sections.

Selection of PSU’s

The PSU’s of each country (all in electronic format) were sorted first into metropolitan, urban and rural areas (in that order), and within each of these categories by region/oblast/province in alphabetical order. This ensured a consistent sorting methodology across all countries and also that the randomness of the selection process could be supervised.

To select the 50 PSU’s from the sample frame of PSU’s, we employed implicit stratification and sampling was done with PPS. Implicit stratification ensured that the sample of PSU’s was spread across the primary categories of explicit variables and a better representation of the population, without actually stratifying the PSU’s thus, avoiding difficulties in calculating the sampling errors at a later stage.
In brief, the PPS involved the following calculations:
· Cumulated size of the selected PSU (CEA, NUTS, etc)
· Scaled cumulated size based on the number of selected PSU’s (50) and the total size of the PSU’s (depending on country)
· Randomly shifted scaled cumulated size using a random number between 0-1

The selected PSU’s were those, where the integer part of the shifted scaled cumulated size changed.

Appendix A of the survey report (organised in country sections), shows the 50 PSU’s selected in each country, as well as where these were geographically located. As can be seen from the selected PSU’s in each country, the population in each PSU ranged from a few hundred people to several hundreds of thousands, especially in metropolitan and urban areas. In some large PSU’s (e.g. Tashkent in Uzbekistan, Almaaty in Kazakhstan, etc) the PPS had apportioned, more than 1 sampling area within the same PSU; this is because of the large population of those units.

Although we would have liked to have PSU’s of approximately equal size (preferably with population less than around 2,000 inhabitants), this was not feasible, because the PSU’s obtained from the various sources described in section 4.3.1, did not go down to that level of detail.

The PSU sampling methodology described in this section was implemented in 28 counties. The exception was Mongolia. In Mongolia, we had to adapt the PSU sampling process to account for the current availability and quality of the data, the very small population density, and the fact that between 30-50% (according to some estimates) of the population live nomadic lives both in urban and rural areas.

The normal stratification used in Mongolia for comparable surveys (like the Asiabarometer) and which methodology we followed also in this case, is to explicitly stratify the sample with the allocation of 19 PSU’s (38%) to the area (1st stratum) of the capital Ulaanbaatar (metropolitan) and the remaining 31 to other urban and rural areas (2nd stratum). We then used PPS selection of PSU’s within each stratum.

PSU changes

In a number of countries (Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, FYROM, Kyrgyz Republic, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan), a few (between 1 and 9) of the originally selected PSU’s, mostly in rural areas had to be replaced during the course of the fieldwork. The replaced PSU’s are given in Appendix A, under each country section. To the extent possible we tried to replace PSU’s by selecting other PSU’s matching the population and socioeconomic profile and proximity of the originally selected areas.

The most common reason for PSU replacement was because of geographical remoteness and consequent difficulties in accessing the area, especially given the poor road and transport infrastructure in many rural parts. There were also cases where PSU’s had low population densities which meant that distances between settlements were great, and where villages which were shown on maps, had subsequently been broken-up or been abandoned. Had we known before the PSU selection how difficult it was to access these PSU’s we would have excluded them from selection from the onset.

In some other cases, poor weather conditions and localised flooding exacerbated the problems and because of time limitations, we could not wait until the weather conditions improved to re-visit the PSU’s which were ultimately replaced.

PSU’s excluded from sampling

Certain territories of some countries (Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, and Tajikistan) were excluded from the original sampling, either because there were conflicts in those areas or political instability, or because the selected areas were inaccessible. In Serbia’s case it was agreed before the start of the project that Kosovo will not be included in this survey.

Selection of dwellings within each chosen PSU

This part of the sampling process presented the most challenges because of the significant differences in the quality, depth, availability and size of PSU’s at this level and other pertinent data in each country. As can be seen from the selected PSU’s, some of the PSU’s were very large. Listing all eligible households and applying a single stage sampling within each PSU’s (or 2nd stage sampling as part of the overall process) was impracticable because of timescale and budget limitations. Listing all the households especially in large PSU’s (sometimes whole cities) would have meant census enumeration plus listings.

2nd stage sampling

In most of the countries it was necessary to apply more than two sampling stages to select households. These stages are described below.

The 2nd stage involved the selection of 4 segments/areas within each PSU, which would allow listing of dwellings and ultimately the sampling of households to be more practicable. For each selected PSU we obtained a hard copy map of the area and split this into small segments/zones. To the extent possible we aimed to have zones with equal populations although, as it turned out, this was not always feasible. Each segment was then given an identification number starting from from the north-east segment. As illustrated in the diagram below we numbered the segments from left to right ("reading a book" method) Segments which did not contain dwellings (such as parks and non-built up areas) were not numbered as above and were excluded from sampling.

The next step was to select 4 zones with the intention of conducting 5 household interviews in each (total of 20 per PSU). The selection of the zones was done using systematic, equal probability sampling.

Prior to fieldwork commencing, interviewers accompanied by fieldwork supervisors visited each selected segment/area and listed on paper all eligible dwellings (likely to be habited by households), including apartments in blocks of flats. Each eligible dwelling was assigned a unique serial number. It is important to note that during this exercise we were listing dwellings and not households as the latter would have taken a considerable time to do. Furthermore, we did not want to disturb some households twice (i.e., the fist time to find out how many households lived in a dwelling and the second time to interview, if selected). For the purposes of this research we assumed that dwellings were inhabited by one household. The same assumption was made for the apartments in blocks of flats.

Non-eligible dwellings such as hospitals, prisons, night clubs, offices etc, were not listed as these were excluded from the scope of the LITS. In the case of remote settlements, it was not always feasible to conduct this preparatory work because of the logistical difficulties involved. In such cases, we estimated the number of dwellings from the population and average size of the household in that area.

3rd stage

The 3rd sampling stage involved the selection of the eligible dwellings (assuming 1 household in each) within each of the selected areas. The nominal number of dwellings was 5. However, before proceeding with the sampling process each country estimated - based on previous experience - the number of household contacts needed to complete 5 interviews by taking into account the usual refusal rate and the likelihood of no interviews for reasons such as not finding anybody at home, or no reply. The number of additional dwellings varied between 3 and 4 depending on the country and the PSU.

The total number of dwellings (5 plus 3-4 possible replacements), were selected from the lists prepared by the fieldworkers during the listing exercise using systematic, equal probability sampling. From the number of selected dwellings (5+replacements) we again applied systematic,
equal probability sampling ("4th stage") but in this case the purpose was to "isolate" those which were replacements. The interviewers were provided with the contact details of the 5 selected dwellings (primary targets) and were told that they should exhaust all possible efforts to conduct interviews with the households of those dwellings only. The interviewers were not told about the reserve dwellings, the existence of which, and the possibility of using them was only known to fieldwork managers and senior supervisors.

Our aim whilst developing and implementing the sampling methodology was to ensure that the sampling procedures left no free choice to the interviewers. In those cases where more than one household resided in the same dwelling we interviewed the household which first opened the door. We made 3 attempts to interview the selected households before proceeding to the replacement households.

Additional sampling stages

In some cases and once the 4 areas were selected (as discussed in the previous section) it was necessary to apply additional sampling stages. This could have occurred when the field team visited the area for the purpose of listing all the dwellings in that area and discovered that because of the large number of dwellings it would have been impracticable to list all of them. In such cases the originally selected area (the four described in the previous section) were further divided into smaller segments. Numbering and selection of the smaller segments was done using the same procedures as those discussed in section 4.3.2.3 of the survey report.

Country sampling stages

In the majority of countries, the sampling process involved 3 stages, the 1st for PSU, the 2nd for areas with PSU’s and the 3rd for dwellings within areas. In Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Estonia, we applied two stages of sampling. In Azerbaijan and Bulgaria we had information on the number of dwellings in each PSU and we did the selection using systematic, equal probability sampling. In Serbia, Montenegro and Estonia although information on the number of dwellings within each PSU’s was available, the holders of this information refused to share it with us. In these countries, selection of the dwellings was done by the statistical institutes using systematic equal probability sampling and a list was provided to us. In Hungary and Russia and for some PSU’s (not all) it was necessary to apply more than 3 stages (as explained in section 4.3.2.3.1 of the survey report).

Selection of household respondents

In each household we sampled sometimes one and sometimes two respondents. The first respondent was always the head of the household or other knowledgeable member, being the person(s) deemed to have the most knowledge on household issues (roster and expenses). The second person who was sampled was the person aged 18 years and over, who last had a birthday in the household.

Where the head of the household did not know the precise date of birth of adult members, or the list of birthdays was incomplete we used the Kish grid method to select the "principal" respondent. There were cases where the head of the household and the principal respondent was the same person. This would happen if the head of the household also had been the person to last have a birthday. There could never be more than two respondents per household. The head of the household was responsible for answering Sections 1 and 2 of the questionnaire (household roster and expenses) and the principal respondent Sections 3 -7 (life in transition).

Mode of data collection
---------------------------

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument
---------------------------

The first version of the LITS questionnaire was piloted (with a sufficient diverse respondent profile – household size, locality age, gender, etc) so as to adapt , if necessary, questions to make them more appropriate to local context, ensure that respondents understood the questions, identify problems in the instrument as well as estimate the length of interviews.

On average the pilot interviews took 74 minutes to complete (min=48, max=113, S.D=12). Following consultations with the EBRD the length of the questionnaire was reduced to approximately 45 minutes, but, as will be explained later in this report many respondents took longer to finish it.

As a result of the findings from the pilots, feedback from the countries during the workshops, and the two teleconferences, as well as feedback from the EBRD and our experience with comparable surveys, some questions and concepts were further developed / refined. These included:
· The amount of personal details we could ask respondents to provide us
· Which members should be included in the household roster
· Appropriate methods for sampling household respondents
· Definitions related to self-employment, work for an employer, occupation and industry of employment, etc

The definition as to who should be included in the household roster was tightened to exclude members of the household who were likely to be away from home on a permanent basis, such as students and working husbands (mainly in the Baltic States). This was to prevent a higher incidence of no interviews.

For the purposes of the LITS the definition of a household was “the people that live together in this dwelling pool their money and have meals in common on a regular basis”. Our interviewers were instructed to read the above definition to the head of each household as well as to ask them to exclude from the household roster persons who were away from home on a permanent basis (for work or studies).

Due to the prevailing political or social conditions in some countries it was necessary to adapt some questions/concepts. These changes which were agreed with the EBRD are described in the remainder of this section.

Turkey
The standard introduction to be read to respondents prior to the interview made reference to the former Soviet Union and the transition period. As Turkey was not part of the Soviet bloc, it was necessary to change the introduction read to Turkish respondents. The question about membership of the Communist Party (Q.7.02) was not asked as this did not apply.

Tajikistan
With forthcoming elections in November 2006 we did not ask Q.7.04 (attend lawful demonstrations, participate in strikes, join a political part, sign petitions) because this question may have been perceived as provocative/motivating/inciting people to do so.

Belarus
Because of local sensitivities we did not ask Q7.02, (Communist Party membership), Q7.04 (attend lawful demonstrations, participate in strikes, join a political part, sign petitions), Q3.03 (trust in the presidency) and Q3.08 (on injustice as a cause of poverty).

Language of questionnaire

In some countries with substantial ethnic minorities we sometimes had to use questionnaires in two languages (local and one other). For example, in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia the Baltic States and some other Asian Republics, we used local language questionnaires as well as in Russian, whilst in the former Yugoslav Republics we sometimes had to use the Albanian version.

Length of the questionnaire

Although the questionnaire was expected to take around 45 minutes to complete, feedback from the fieldworkers suggested that many people took longer to finish it. Interviews ranged from 40 minutes to well over one hour. Although younger respondents were more difficult to recruit, they tended to answer questions faster than older people or respondents with basic education who sometimes struggled to understand some of the questions and concepts and more explanations were needed. The length of interview for some respondents was regarded as too long who were normally showing signs of fatigue and lapses of concentration towards the end of the interview.

Issues and comments on the survey instrument

As a general comment, despite frequent re-assurances about confidentiality, some respondents appeared to be less convinced than others.

Generally the sensitive questions on household sources of income and unofficial payments were received with suspicion and mistrust by a number of respondents, and we believe that some of the answers given may not reflect reality. Conclusions from these types of questions should be treated with caution.

Section 1 (Household roster)

Some heads of household could not provide exact dates of birth, or respondents took time to remember all the birthdays of household members. In such cases, other family members would interfere with the interview to provide the missing information. Some people felt uncomfortable supplying their names and addresses, given that before commencing the interview they were told, that their responses were meant to be confidential. Respondents were also concerned about the general issue of personal data protection. We suspect that in some cases, there was a tendency for head of households to understate the actual number of household members in cases where communal utility charges (mostly in apartment blocks) were based on the number of people living in the household.

Section 2 (Housing expenses)

Housing and ownership
The results to the questions about housing and ownership of dwellings (Q.2.01-Q.2.04) need to be treated with caution because of the likelihood of different interpretations about the meaning of questions by some respondents and our interviewers. On Q.2.01 – type of dwelling-. It is possible that some interviewers may not have had the same understanding of the type of dwelling as people in more developed countries. In some particularly poor areas of certain countries, improvised housing units may have been classified as detached houses, (which in a sense they are), but obviously their construction and structure are not to the same standards found in developed countries. Some owners of recently built apartments and houses did not yet have title deeds to their property because of time-consuming and bureaucratic local registration procedures so they found it difficult to answer some of the questions. In some countries, dwellings could be built on somebody else’s land. In these cases, ownership is difficult to ascertain, because the building belongs to one person (who pays rent) and the land to a different person.
We also suspect mistrust about the property questions because some people appeared to be uncomfortable to disclose information regarding their property rights, especially if this was obtained not obtained100% legally.

Utilities
Responses to the questions on water, heating and other utilities (Q2.05 and Q2.06) also need to be regarded with care. Although households may not have access to pipeline tap water, or have frequent cuts, some respondents commented that they use other sources of supply such as water stored in roof top tanks, collected from streams, or even bought from water tankers which visit their neighbourhoods on a regular basis. Equally, people may not have public central heating, but are not necessarily going cold, because they use stand-alone central heating systems, electrical heaters, coal, firewood, and other means to heat their homes.

Expenditure
Some respondents experienced problems in calculating household expenditure on food, clothing, transport and communication, and other goods and services for the past 30 days and year (Q.2.07 and Q.2.08) and had to consult with other family members (usually the partner or spouse) to get accurate estimates. In the analysis of the results, the seasonality of the expenses (for this survey the data were for the summer reason) may need to be taken into account. Regarding health expenses and for the avoidance of doubt, we advised respondents to exclude the contributions deducted automatically from their salaries.
As concerns annual expenses, some respondents mentioned that the cost of firewood used for heating and cooking was a significant expense.

Sources of income
Respondents were wary about answering Q.2.10, and may have been reporting only officially declared sources of income and were reluctant to disclose livelihoods received from other sources, especially unofficial. This reluctance, in many cases, can be associated with the suspicion and distrust which was shown to interviewers by respondents who believed they were working for the government, tax authorities, or other official agencies. This suspicion was underpinned by the fact that they were asked to provide their name and address to the interviewer, despite being told that the survey was confidential.

Household standing
One factor that needs to be understood with regard to the answers to Q.2.11, Q.2.12 by some respondents is the fact that their perceptions about the past are coloured by their own situation. Therefore, in comparing their household now to 1989, they were looking back to a time when they were younger, healthier, single and living with their parents, not retired, etc. In analysing the results these personal issues may need to be taken into consideration, because some respondents would perceive that their lives had got worse over the intervening period, but this may just have been due to the ageing process, and not necessarily indicative that conditions during transition had deteriorated. Some respondents commented that overall, conditions today are better than 17 years ago, only if one is working. For the unemployed the situation is much worse. In some cases, respondents were perhaps answering Q.2.11 from an aspirational perspective i.e. where the household would like to be as opposed to the actual situation. There were also cases, where we felt that respondents felt embarrassed to give an honest answer, especially if their household was at the bottom of ladder.

Making ends meet
We think that in some cases respondents were answering Q.2.15 with an ideal salary in mind, whilst in other cases, thinking about their actual salary.

Section 3 (Attitudes and values)

Whilst some respondents answered this section easily and promptly, for others there was a great deal of mistrust and suspicion surrounding the questions in this section. A number of people regarded the questions as personal and confidential, and in some cases seemed to give evasive answers. And there were cases in some countries where respondents became angry and impatient with such questions, because they were tired of politics and economics. For them despite years of talk about such issues there have been no tangible improvements in their own lives. Some of the questions in Q.3.01 touched upon respondents’ pride (“how well have they done in life”). Therefore, they may have been inclined to answer that they had done better in life than their parents or classmates, even if that may not have been the reality. Responses to the question as to whether there is less corruption now than in 1989 (Q3.01) need to be interpreted carefully, as some respondents mentioned that pre-1989 corruption took the form of various favours done for individuals or groups, whilst today it has been replaced by monetary corruption.
On trust in institutions (Q.3.03), some people either professed ignorance of these matters or tried to avoid answering such questions. In Belarus, for example, as well as in some of the Asian Republics, some people were afraid about expressing opinions on such matters and were concerned that the interviewer might be trying to provoke them into expressing views that differed from the official line.
In some countries, respondents appeared to be uncomfortable with the questions about unofficial payments (Q.3.13, Q.3.14, and Q.3.15).
Some older people and those living in rural areas struggled to understand some of the questions and indicated that they had little direct contact with some of the institutions mentioned. In some cases, respondents appeared to give more “politically” correct answers than honest and truthful opinions.
People who live in urban areas showed more interest in politics and institutions than those who live in the countryside. Respondents in rural areas often did not care what political system or who was running the country because this had no significant influence on their lives. Younger respondents had problems comparing life today and in 1989, and often had to rely on hearsay and the memories of other family members.

Section 4 (Current activities)

Perhaps the biggest issue with this section was the recording of occupation and industry (Q.4.05 and Q.4.06) because many respondents had difficulties in classifying themselves against the definitions in the show cards. The process of collecting this information was as follows. We asked respondents to tell us, in their own words, their occupation and the industry in which they worked. We then showed them the occupation and industry show cards and ask them to select those categories which they though best fit their jobs. If the respondents had difficulties with the cards, the interviewers offered advice and guidance on which were the most likely categories The actual method of collecting the employment information (occupation and industry) was discussed with the EBRD during the development of the questionnaire. Whilst both parties agreed that the best option was to record qualitative information and code this post-survey (coding to be done by one person,) it was also agreed that this was not a practicable solution because of timing and budgetary constraints. As a matter of fact, collecting such detailed employment information and the controls needed to verify the data, constitute a separate survey on its own right.
Respondents with a lower level of education sometimes could not understand, without the help of the interviewer, the question regarding changes in the ownership of enterprises. There may have also been confusion among farmers who sometimes classified themselves as self employed.

Section 5 (Education and labour)

Although this section did not cause many problems, some respondents were unsure about the educational history and occupation (in terms of “principal job”), of their parents (Q5.03 and Q5.05). 4.6.3.6 Section 6 (Life history) For most respondents this section took the longest to complete and at this stage, they started showing signs of fatigue and lack of concentration.
As a general comment on the options of Not Applicable (code 19), it should be mentioned that questions were asked and if these were not applicable, respondents indicated so. Not applicable should be interpreted that an event did not take place during the intervening period (for example, did not get married, or did not have a child) or does not apply, such as women doing military service. On the other hand, the event may have happened, for example got married but if this was before 1989, the answer is still Not Applicable (code 19).
Some respondents were embarrassed talking about their previous or current jobs or their life history if their partner (wife or husband) was present, as these questions touched upon issues that they regarded as sensitive and personal and not necessarily known by their partner.

Important events and employment history
Although, Q.6.01 was meant to be a memory jogger to get respondents to remember the dates of their employment and other events it seems that this question has not fully served its purpose, because it was still taking respondents considerable time (for those with many jobs) to remember what they had done for a living and where they had worked since 1989 (Q.6.02).

Life in transition
There were cases where even wealthier respondents had chosen to cut down on basic food consumption (Q6.05), in order to be able to save for fashionable consumer goods, such as a new car, which are seen as a sign of social status. And there were cases where parents had sought monetary help from their children, or remittances from offspring working abroad, but did not regard this as turning to relatives for financial assistance, but a family obligation. Relatives for some respondents were regarded as distant relatives, not children or brothers and sisters.

Section 7 (Final questions)

Because of the political nature (Q.7.01, Q.7.02, Q.7.03 and Q.7.04), a number of respondents were suspicious and hesitant to answer these questions. In particular, people were wary about the question regarding membership of the Communist Party membership (Q.7.02), especially if they had been former members themselves or their family. In places with large ethnic minority communities, questions about nationality and religion resulted in reluctance to answer. People either did not want to discuss these issues or regarded such questions as intrusive. In other cases, the answers provided were what they thought the
interviewer wanted to hear, as opposed to their real feelings on these subjects.
In response to Q.7.06 – what is your religion? – Some respondents based their answers on family background rather than personal belief.

Section 8 (Conduct of interview)

This section was self-completed by the interviewers.

Response rate
---------------------------

As mentioned earlier we made 3 attempts to interview eligible households. As table 2 in the survey report shows, most interviews were successfully completed on the first visit. In total 29,002 successful interviews were completed; 1,000 per country, except in the Slovak Republic and Slovenia where an additional interview was conducted in each country.

On average, 79% of the interviews were completed on the first visit, 16% on the second and 6% on the third. Interviews were successfully completed on a first visit in rural as opposed to urban areas, with people especially in capital cities often being absent or returning home late from work. In addition, in some societies, such as the Balkans and the Asian Republics, high initial success rates can be attributed to the structure of local societies where several generations of a family live in the same house – there is always somebody home.

Those occasions where interviews were completed on 2nd and 3rd attempts were because either the household head or the principal respondent was absent during the previous visits. Reasons for not being at home include the fact that because of the harvest time, some respondents were still in the fields until late at night (rural) or still at work (urban).

Another issue that caused more than one interviewer visit, was because fieldwork was conducted during the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan, and respondents in Muslim countries were not available during certain times (breaking fast). Also the hours that Muslim interviewers could work were also curtailed.

摘要
-------------------------------------------
从社会主义向市场经济转型改变了许多人的生活方式。人们对转型的看法和态度是什么？目前对市场改革和政治制度的看法如何？
为了分析这些问题，欧洲复兴开发银行（EBRD）和世界银行共同开展了全面的、区域性的“转型生活调查”（LiTS），该调查结合了传统的家庭调查特征和关于受访者态度的问题，并通过两阶段抽样方法进行，对家庭和受访者进行随机选择。
LiTS评估了转型对人们在其转型初期15年中的个人和职业经历的影响。LiTS试图了解这些转型个人经历如何与人们对市场和政治改革的看法以及他们对未来的优先事项相关联。
LiTS的主要目标是建立在对现有研究的综合评估的基础上，全面评估生活满意度与生活水平、贫困与不平等、对国家机构的信任、对公共服务的满意度、对市场经济和民主的态度之间的关系，并为深入了解转型如何影响中东欧16个国家以及独联体11个国家的民众生活提供有价值的见解。
地理覆盖范围
-------------------------------------------
LiTS将在以下29个国家实施：阿尔巴尼亚、亚美尼亚、阿塞拜疆、白俄罗斯、波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那、保加利亚、克罗地亚、捷克共和国、爱沙尼亚、前南斯拉夫马其顿共和国（FYROM）、格鲁吉亚、匈牙利、哈萨克斯坦、吉尔吉斯共和国、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、摩尔多瓦、蒙古、波兰、罗马尼亚、俄罗斯、塞尔维亚和黑山、斯洛伐克共和国、斯洛文尼亚、塔吉克斯坦、土耳其、土库曼斯坦、乌克兰和乌兹别克斯坦。
数据类型
-------------------------------------------
样本调查数据 [ssd]
抽样程序
-------------------------------------------
每个国家将进行1,000次面对面家庭访谈，访谈对象为18岁以上的成年人，年龄没有上限。样本将具有全国代表性。EBRD首选的抽样方法是两阶段抽样方法，以人口普查登记区（CEA）为一级抽样单位，家庭为二级抽样单位。尽可能使抽样程序不超过两个阶段。
第一阶段的选择是使用最近一次人口普查生成的CEA名单作为抽样框架。理想情况下，将从该样本框架中选择50个一级抽样单位（PSU），使用规模比例抽样（PPS），以人口或家庭数量作为规模衡量标准。
第二阶段抽样是在每个一级抽样单位内选择家庭，使用特别开发的每个选定PSU内所有家庭的名单作为抽样框架。要从该名单中选择要访谈的家庭，采用系统、等概率抽样。每个PSU中选择20户家庭。
在每个选定的家庭中随机选择要访谈的个人，尽可能不进行替换。
PSU样本框架的建立
在每个国家，我们建立了最适合LiTS抽样方法的最新的PSU样本框架。调查报告第1页（表1）中显示了每个国家的PSU样本框架的详细信息。
在亚美尼亚、阿塞拜疆、哈萨克斯坦、塞尔维亚和乌兹别克斯坦，使用了CEA。
在克罗地亚，我们也使用了CEA，但在此情况下，由于CEA非常小，我们无法在每个PSU内完成目标数量的访谈，因此我们将相邻的CEA合并在一起，并构建了一个1,732个合并的普查区样本。情况与黑山相同。
在爱沙尼亚、匈牙利、立陶宛、波兰和斯洛伐克共和国，我们使用了欧盟统计局的NUTS区域分类系统。
[注：NUTS（来自法语“Nomenclature des territorialis statistiques”或英语“Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics”），是一个统一和一致的系统，在五个不同的NUTS级别上运行，并被广泛用于包括欧元晴雨表（与生活转型调查可比的调查）在内的欧盟调查。作为一个层级系统，NUTS将国家的领土划分为一定数量的地区，在NUTS 1级（人口3-7百万）、NUTS 2级（80万-3百万）和NUTS 3级（15万-80万）。在更详细的层面上，NUTS 3被划分为更小的单位（地区和市镇）。这些被称为“地方行政单位”（LAU）。LAU进一步划分为上LAU（LAU1 - 原NUTS 4）和LAU 2（原NUTS 5）。
阿尔巴尼亚、保加利亚、捷克共和国、格鲁吉亚、摩尔多瓦和罗马尼亚使用选民登记作为PSU样本框架的基础。在其他情况下，PSU样本框架是通过使用当地地理或行政和领土分类系统来选择的。每个国家的PSU样本框架总数从蒙古的182个到土耳其的48,000多个不等。为了确保我们的现场工作人员的安全，我们排除了有冲突和政治不稳定的国家中的PSU领土（例如在格鲁吉亚、阿塞拜疆、摩尔多瓦、俄罗斯等国）。我们还排除了由于地形或人口稀少而难以进入的地区。
在大多数情况下，这些信息的来源是相关国家的国家统计机构或中央选举委员会。在建立样本框架时，尽可能保持统一的大小衡量标准，即18岁及以上的人口，这对于LiTS方法来说更为相关。如果PSU基于CEA，则衡量标准通常是总人口，而选民登记提供有关18岁及以上人口的数据，这是所有抽样国家的正常投票年龄。尽管NUTS分类提供了关于总人口的数据，但我们尽可能地过滤信息，并使用18岁及以上的人口作为大小衡量标准。通常，其他分类系统衡量的是一个国家的总人口。然而，在阿塞拜疆，它使用CEA，以及斯洛文尼亚，它采用了基于行政和领土区域的分类系统，大小衡量标准是每个PSU的家庭数量。
PSU信息的准确性在很大程度上取决于数据收集的时间。如果数据是新近收集的，那么这些信息可以被认为是相对准确的。然而，在一些国家，我们认为可能有更新的信息可用，但由于相关当局以保密为由拒绝与我们分享，我们别无选择，只能使用不那么新的数据。在一些国家，可用数据的年龄使数据变得不确定。一个明显的例子是波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那，最新的数据可以追溯到1991年，在巴尔干战争之前。可用的数据没有考虑到平民人口遭受的伤亡，以及随后的人口流动和迁移。
抽样方法
-------------------------------------------
简述
在总体上，采用了以下抽样方法：
· 从PSU样本框架中选择50个单位
· 在每个选定的PSU内，抽样20户家庭，每个国家共1000次访谈
· 在每个家庭内，抽样1人和有时2人
抽样程序旨在不给访谈员留下自由选择的空间。以下各节详细介绍了上述各步骤以及为适应PSU信息的可用性、深度和质量以及当地操作问题而进行的国家特定程序。
PSU的选择
每个国家的PSU（全部为电子格式）首先按城市、城镇和农村地区（按此顺序）排序，然后在每个类别内按地区/州/省的字母顺序排序。这确保了所有国家的一致排序方法，并确保选择过程的随机性可以得到监督。
要从PSU样本框架中选择50个PSU，我们采用了隐含分层，并使用PPS进行抽样。隐含分层确保了PSU样本在显式变量的主要类别中得到分布，更好地代表了人口，而实际上并没有对PSU进行分层，从而避免了在后期计算抽样误差的困难。
简而言之，PPS包括以下计算：
· 选择PSU的累计规模（CEA、NUTS等）
· 基于所选PSU数量（50）和PSU总规模（取决于国家）的累计规模比例
· 使用0-1之间的随机数随机移动缩放后的累计规模
选中PSU的整数部分发生变化的地方。
调查报告附录A（按国家章节组织）显示了每个国家选中的50个PSU，以及它们在地理上的位置。从每个国家的选中PSU可以看出，每个PSU的人口从几百人到几百万不等，尤其是在城市和城镇地区。在一些大型PSU中（例如乌兹别克斯坦的塔什干、哈萨克斯坦的阿拉木图等），PPS在同一个PSU内分配了多个抽样区域；这是由于这些单位的人口众多。
尽管我们希望PSU具有大致相等的大小（最好人口少于约2,000人），但这并不实际，因为从第4.3.1节中描述的各种来源获得的PSU没有达到这一详细程度。
本节中描述的PSU抽样方法在28个国家得到实施。例外情况是蒙古。在蒙古，我们必须根据当前数据的可用性和质量、非常低的人口密度以及30-50%（据估计）的人口生活在城市和农村地区的游牧生活方式来调整PSU抽样过程。
蒙古用于可比调查（如Asiabarometer）的正常分层以及我们在此案中也遵循的方法是将样本显式分层，将19个PSU（38%）分配给首都乌兰巴托（都市）地区，其余31个分配给其他城市和农村地区（第二层）。然后在每个层中使用PPS选择PSU。
PSU的变更
在许多国家（亚美尼亚、波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那、爱沙尼亚、前南斯拉夫马其顿共和国、吉尔吉斯共和国、立陶宛、罗马尼亚、俄罗斯、塔吉克斯坦、乌克兰和乌兹别克斯坦），在实地工作过程中，一些最初选中的PSU（在乡村地区）必须进行更换。更换的PSU列在附录A的每个国家章节中。尽可能通过选择其他与原始选定区域的人口和社会经济状况以及邻近性相匹配的PSU来更换PSU。
更换PSU的最常见原因是由于地理位置偏远，以及由于许多农村地区的道路和交通基础设施状况不佳而导致的访问困难。
在某些情况下，PSU的人口密度很低，这意味着定居点之间的距离很远，而地图上显示的村庄随后被拆分或被遗弃。如果我们事先知道PSU选择有多困难，我们就会从一开始就排除它们的选择。
在某些其他情况下，恶劣的天气条件和局部洪水加剧了问题，而且由于时间限制，我们无法等到天气好转后再访问最终被更换的PSU。
从抽样中排除的PSU
某些国家的某些领土（阿尔巴尼亚、阿塞拜疆、哈萨克斯坦、蒙古、摩尔多瓦、俄罗斯、塞尔维亚和塔吉克斯坦）在原始抽样中被排除，要么是因为这些地区有冲突或政治不稳定，要么是因为选定的地区难以进入。
在塞尔维亚的情况下，在项目开始之前就达成协议，科索沃将不包括在本调查中。
每个选定PSU内住宅的选择
抽样过程这一部分因PSU在这一级别的质量、深度、可用性和规模以及每个国家的其他相关数据之间存在显著差异而面临最大的挑战。
从选定的PSU中选择住宅的这一部分需要应用超过两个抽样阶段来选择家庭。以下描述了这些阶段。
第二阶段涉及在每个PSU内选择4个区域/地区，这将允许列出住宅并最终对要抽取的家庭进行抽样更加可行。
对于每个选定的PSU，我们获得该区域的硬拷贝地图，并将其分割成小的区域/区域。尽可能使区域拥有相等的人口，尽管实际上这并不总是可行的。每个区域都分配了一个从东北区域开始的识别号码。如以下示意图所示，我们从左到右编号区域（“读书法”）。不包含住宅的区域（如公园和非建成区）没有按上述方法编号，并被排除在抽样之外。
下一步是选择4个区域，目的是在每个区域进行5户家庭的访谈（每个PSU总共20户）。使用系统、等概率抽样选择区域。
在实地工作开始之前，访谈员和实地工作监督员访问每个选定的区域/地区，并记录在纸上所有合格的住宅（可能由家庭居住），包括公寓楼中的公寓。每个合格的住宅都被分配了一个唯一的序列号。请注意，在此过程中，我们正在列出住宅，而不是家庭，因为后者需要花费相当多的时间。此外，我们不想打扰一些家庭两次（即第一次确定住宅中有多少家庭，第二次如果选中则进行访谈）。为了这次研究，我们假设住宅由一个家庭居住。同样，对于公寓楼中的公寓也做出了同样的假设。
不合格的住宅，如医院、监狱、夜总会、办公室等，没有列出，因为这些不在LiTS的范围内。在偏远定居点，由于涉及到的后勤困难，有时无法进行这项准备工作。在这种情况下，我们根据人口和该地区家庭平均规模估计住宅数量。
第三阶段
第三阶段抽样是在每个选定的区域内选择合格的住宅（假设每个住宅有一户家庭）。名义上的住宅数量是5个。然而，在开始抽样过程之前，每个国家根据以往的经验估计了需要多少户家庭联系才能完成5次访谈，这要考虑到通常的拒绝率以及由于找不到人、没有回复等原因而无法进行访谈的可能性。额外的住宅数量在3到4个之间，具体取决于国家和PSU。
从现场工作人员在登记过程中准备的名单中选择住宅（5个加上3-4个可能的替换），使用系统、等概率抽样。从所选住宅的数量（5个加上替换）中，我们再次应用系统、等概率抽样（“第四阶段”），但这次的目的是为了“隔离”那些是替换的。访谈员被提供了5个选定住宅（主要目标）的联系方式，并被告知他们应该竭尽全力与那些住宅的家庭进行访谈。访谈员没有被告知关于备用住宅的存在，这些备用住宅的存在以及可能使用它们的可能性只被现场管理人员和高级监督人员所知。
在开发和实施抽样方法时，我们的目标是确保抽样程序不给访谈员留下自由选择的空间。在同一个住宅中居住多个家庭的情况下，我们访谈首先开门的家庭。我们尝试对选定家庭进行3次访谈，然后转向备用家庭。
附加抽样阶段
在某些情况下，一旦选择了4个区域（如前所述），就需要应用附加抽样阶段。这可能发生在实地队访问该区域以列出该区域的所有住宅时，发现由于住宅数量众多，不可能列出所有住宅。在这种情况下，最初选定的区域（如前所述的四个区域）被进一步划分为更小的区域。使用与调查报告第4.3.2.3节中描述相同的程序对较小区域进行编号和选择。
国家抽样阶段
在大多数国家，抽样过程涉及3个阶段，第1个阶段是PSU，第2个阶段是PSU所在的区域，第3个阶段是区域内的住宅。在阿塞拜疆、保加利亚、塞尔维亚、黑山和爱沙尼亚，我们应用了两个阶段的抽样。在阿塞拜疆和保加利亚，我们有了每个PSU中住宅数量的信息，并使用系统、等概率抽样进行选择。在塞尔维亚、黑山和爱沙尼亚，尽管有关于每个PSU中住宅数量的信息，但掌握这些信息的人拒绝与我们分享。在这些国家，住宅的选择是由统计机构使用系统、等概率抽样进行的，并向我们提供了名单。在匈牙利和俄罗斯以及一些PSU（不是所有）的情况下，有必要应用超过3个阶段（如调查报告第4.3.2.3.1节中所述）。
家庭受访者选择
在每个家庭中，有时抽样1人，有时抽样2人。第一个受访者始终是户主或其他知识渊博的成员，被认为是家庭问题（名单和费用）知识最丰富的人。抽样的人是最后一个在该家庭过生日且年龄在18岁及以上的人。
在户主不知道成年成员的确切出生日期或生日名单不完整的情况下，我们使用Kish网格法选择“主要”受访者。在有些情况下，户主和主要受访者是同一个人。如果户主也是最后一个过生日的人，就会发生这种情况。每个家庭中不可能有超过两个受访者。户主负责回答问卷的第1节和第2节（家庭名单和费用），而主要受访者回答第3-7节（转型生活）。
数据收集方式
-------------------------------------------
面对面 [f2f]
研究工具
-------------------------------------------
LiTS问卷的第一个版本已经进行了试点（具有足够的多样化的受访者特征——家庭规模、地区、年龄、性别等），以便在必要时调整问题，使其更适应当地环境，确保受访者理解问题，确定工具中的问题，以及估计访谈的长度。
平均而言，试点访谈需要74分钟才能完成（最小值=48，最大值=113，标准差=12）。在咨询EBRD后，问卷的长度被减少到大约45分钟，但正如将在本报告的后面部分解释的那样，许多受访者花费了更长的时间来完成它。
由于试点调查的结果、各国在研讨会上的反馈、两次电话会议、EBRD的反馈以及与可比调查的经验，一些问题和概念得到了进一步发展/完善。这些包括：
· 我们可以要求受访者提供多少个人信息
· 应该包括哪些家庭成员在家庭名单中
· 家庭受访者的抽样方法
· 与自营职业、为雇主工作、职业和就业行业等相关的定义
家庭名单中应包括哪些成员的定义已经收紧，以排除可能长期离家的人，例如学生和工作的丈夫（主要在波罗的海国家）。这是为了防止访谈率过高。
为了LiTS，家庭被定义为“共同居住在这个住宅中、定期 pooling 财务并共同用餐的人”。我们的访谈员被指示向每个家庭的户主阅读上述定义，并要求他们排除那些因工作或学习而长期离家的人。
由于一些国家存在某些政治或社会条件，有必要调整一些问题/概念。本节剩余部分描述了这些更改，这些更改与EBRD达成一致。
土耳其
在访谈开始前向受访者阅读的标准介绍中提到了前苏联和转型期。由于土耳其不是苏联集团的一部分，因此有必要更改向土耳其受访者阅读的介绍。
塔吉克斯坦
由于2006年11月即将举行选举，我们没有问Q.7.04（参加合法示威、参与罢工、加入政党、签署请愿书），因为这个问题可能被认为具有挑衅性/激励性/煽动性。
白俄罗斯
由于当地敏感性，我们没有问Q7.02（共产党成员）、Q7.04（参加合法示威、参与罢工、加入政党、签署请愿书）、Q3.03（对总统的信任）和Q3.08（不公正作为贫困的原因）。
问卷语言
在一些有大量少数民族的国家，有时必须使用两种语言的问卷（当地语言和另一种语言）。例如，在阿塞拜疆、格鲁吉亚、亚美尼亚、波罗的海国家以及一些其他亚洲共和国，我们使用了当地语言的问卷以及俄语，而在前南斯拉夫共和国，有时必须使用阿尔巴尼亚语版本。
问卷长度
尽管问卷的预期完成时间约为45分钟，但来自实地工作人员的反馈表明，许多人花费了更长的时间来完成它。访谈时间从40分钟到超过一小时不等。尽管年轻受访者更难招募，但他们倾向于比年龄较大的人或受教育程度较低的人或受访者回答问题更快，后者有时难以理解一些问题，需要更多的解释。一些受访者的访谈时间被认为太长，他们通常在访谈结束时表现出疲劳和注意力不集中。
调查工具的问题和评论
总的来说，尽管经常保证保密，但一些受访者似乎比其他人更不相信。
一般来说，关于家庭收入来源和非官方支付的问题在许多受访者中受到了怀疑和不信任，我们相信一些给出的答案可能并不反映现实。对这些类型问题的结论应谨慎对待。
第1节（家庭名单）
一些户主无法提供确切的出生日期，或者受访者需要时间来回忆所有家庭成员的生日。在这种情况下，