Migrant's Remittances logoMigrant's Remittances logo
LinkedIn

Visualization

Home Visualization

Migration in the WB countries
(% of total population)
__________________

Albania

0
%

Bosnia and Herzegovina

0
%

Kosovo

0
%

Montenegro

0
%

Serbia

0
%

Macedonia

0
%

Remittances in the Western Balkan countries
(% of GDP)
____________________

Kosovo

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Montenegro

Serbia

Albania

Croatia

Macedonia

Remittances pattern in the Western
Balkan countries

Macedonia
Serbia
Albania

Macedonia
_____________

Share of remittances in total income

Macedonian

0
%

Albanian

0
%

Male headed household  

0
%

Female headed household

0
%

Poor

0
%

Non Poor

0
%

Rural

0
%

Urban

0
%

Conclusion: Remittances are a very important source of income for the consumption of poor households, as 91% of their consumption is financed by remittances.

 

Social vulnerability in receiving and non receiving
remittance households

Receiving households

Nonreceiving households

Poverty

Receiving

16%
16%

Nonreceiving

22%
22%

At risk of poverty

Receiving

33%
33%

Nonreceiving

35%
35%

Undernourishment

Receiving

18%
18%

Nonreceiving

24%
24%

Bad clothing condition

Receiving

13%
13%

Nonreceiving

17%
17%

Bad health condition

Receiving

11%
11%

Nonreceiving

14%
14%

Low leisure consumption

Receiving

46%
46%

Nonreceiving

36%
36%

Conclusion: Remittance receivers have significantly lower relative poverty, are likely healthier, better nourished and better dressed compared to non-receiving ones.

 

Facets of vulnerability by gender in
receiving households

Income poverty

At risk of poverty

Bad housing condition

Undernourishment

Bad clothing condition

Low leisure consumption

Bad health condition

Female

11%
11%
18%
18%
10%
10%
12%
12%
9%
9%
1%
1%
14%
14%

Male

17%
17%
38%
38%
16%
16%
19%
19%
15%
15%
3%
3%
10%
10%

Conclusion: Female-headed receiving households are in better social condition than male-headed households.

Facets of vulnerability by ethnicity
in receiving households

Macedonians

Albanians

Income poverty
At risk of poverty
Bad housing condition
Undernourishment
Bad clothing condition
Low leisure consumption
Bad health condition

Conclusion: Despite with better housing and nourishment conditions, in general ethnic Albanians are in worse social conditions than Macedonians.

 

Facets of vulnerability by age

Young-headed receiving

Non-young-headed receiving

Income poverty

19%
19%
16%
16%

At risk of poverty

36%
36%
32%
32%

Bad housing co.

7%
7%
15%
15%

Undernourishment

8%
8%
19%
19%

Bad clothing condition

5%
5%
15%
15%

Low leisure consumption

2%
2%
2%
2%

Bad health condition

0%
0%
13%
13%

Conclusion: Young-headed receiving households have deeper vulnerability than compared to the non-receiving counterparts.

Serbia
_____________

Share of remittances in total income

All

0
%

Male headed household

0
%

Female headed household

0
%

Poor

0
%

Non Poor

0
%

Urban

0
%

Rural

0
%

Conclusion: On average, remittances make less than a third (27.7%) of the remittance-receiving household’s income.

Social vulnerability in receiving and non receiving
remittance households

Receiving households

Nonreceiving households

Poverty

Receiving

36%
36%

Nonreceiving

33%
33%

Single parent

Receiving

4%
4%

Nonreceiving

3%
3%

Unemployed spouses

Receiving

3%
3%

Nonreceiving

2%
2%

Bad health

Receiving

18%
18%

Nonreceiving

15%
15%

Undernourishment

Receiving

36%
36%

Nonreceiving

34%
34%

Bad housing

Receiving

19%
19%

Nonreceiving

14%
14%

Bad Leisure

Receiving

24%
24%

Nonreceiving

32%
32%

Bad Clothing

Receiving

32%
32%

Nonreceiving

29%
29%

Conclusion: Receiving households are more vulnerable with respect to subjective poverty, health, housing, clothing, nourishment, and family type (they are more frequently single parent or unemployed source family).

 

Facets of vulnerability by gender in
receiving households

Poverty

Single parent

Unemployed spouses

Vulnerable family type

Bad health

Bad housing

Bad clothing

Undernourishment

Bad leisure

Female

12%
12%
10%
10%
1%
1%
10%
10%
24%
24%
18%
18%
30%
30%
36%
36%
22%
22%

Male

25%
25%
1%
1%
5%
5%
6%
6%
14%
14%
19%
19%
34%
34%
36%
36%
25%
25%

Conclusion: Male-headed households have higher level of poverty and are more vulnerable with respect to clothing and leisure. On the other hand, female-headed households are more vulnerable with respect to the family type and especially health.

 

Facets of vulnerability by settlement type in receiving households

Urban

Rural

Poverty
Single parent
Unemployed spouses
Vulnerable family type
Bad health
Bad leisure
Bad housing
Bad clothing
Undernourishment

Conclusion: Urban receiving households are more vulnerable than rural. The difference is the highest for poverty, clothing and nourishment.

 

Facets of vulnerability by age

Working age headed (15-64)

Old headed (65+)

Poverty

24%
24%
10%
10%

Single parent

6%
6%
0%
0%

Unemployed spouses

5%
5%
0%
0%

Vulnerable family type

11%
11%
0%
0%

Bad health

8%
8%
41%
41%

Bad leisure

26%
26%
20%
20%

Bad housing

23%
23%
10%
10%

Bad clothing

37%
37%
22%
22%

Undernourishment

40%
40%
27%
27%

Conclusion: Working age headed households are more vulnerable than if the head is an elderly person, in all categories except for (expectedly) health.

Albania
_____________

Share of remittances in total income

All

0
%

Male headed household

0
%

Female headed household

0
%

Poor

0
%

Non poor

0
%

Rural

0
%

Urban

0
%

Conclusion: Remittances are a very important source of income for the consumption of female headed and rural households.

 

Social vulnerability in receiving and non receiving
remittance households

Receiving households

Nonreceiving households

Poverty

Receiving

8%
8%

Nonreceiving

25%
25%

At risk of poverty

Receiving

6%
6%

Nonreceiving

19%
19%

Undernourishment

Receiving

5%
5%

Nonreceiving

16%
16%

Bad clothing condition

Receiving

21%
21%

Nonreceiving

32%
32%

Bad health condition

Receiving

8%
8%

Nonreceiving

6%
6%

Low leisure consumption

Receiving

42%
42%

Nonreceiving

36%
36%

Conclusion: Remittance-receiving households are found to be three times less poor than the others (8% compared to 25%).

 

Facets of vulnerability by gender in
receiving households

Income poverty

At risk of poverty

Bad housing condition

Undernourishment

Bad clothing condition

Bad health condition

Low leisure consumption

Female

1%
1%
9%
9%
2%
2%
2%
2%
22%
22%
10%
10%
70%
70%

Male

11%
11%
5%
5%
3%
3%
6%
6%
20%
20%
7%
7%
34%
34%

Conclusion: Female-headed households who receive remittances demonstrate the lowest income poverty compared to their male counterparts.

Facets of vulnerability by geography
in receiving households

Rural

Urban

Income poverty
At risk of poverty
Bad housing condition
Undernourishment
Bad clothing condition
Bad health condition
Low leisure consumption

Conclusion: Remittance-receiving households residing in urban areas appear to be less vulnerable than those residing in rural areas.

Facets of vulnerability by age

Young-headed receiving

Non-young-headed receiving

Income poverty

19%
19%
16%
16%

At risk of poverty

36%
36%
32%
32%
Bad housing condition
7%
7%
15%
15%

Undernourishment

8%
8%
19%
19%

Bad clothing condition

5%
5%
15%
15%

Low leisure consumption

2%
2%
2%
2%

Bad health condition

0%
0%
13%
13%

Conclusion: Young-headed receiving households have deeper vulnerability than compared to the non-receiving counterparts.