Download Report on the living conditions of Roma households in Slovakia 2010 PDF

TitleReport on the living conditions of Roma households in Slovakia 2010
Author
LanguageEnglish
File Size7.8 MB
Total Pages225
Table of Contents
                            eng_roma_chapter_01_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_02_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_03_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_04_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_05_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_06_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_07_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_08_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_09_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_10_Layout 1
	eng_roma_chapter_11_Layout 1
                        
Document Text Contents
Page 1

UNDP_logo.eps


europeandcis.undp.orgUNDP, 2012

Page 2

Report on the Living Conditions
of Roma households
in Slovakia 2010

UNDP Europe and the CIS,
Bratislava Regional Centre

Page 112

9-3.eps


120

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N S O F R O M A H O U S E H O L D S I N S L O V A K I A 2 0 1 0

Graph 9.3
Roma population age 15+ years by economic status and type of settlement – comparison with the year 2005 (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Student

Working

Unemployed

At home

Parental or maternal leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other (including OČD)

Student

Working

Unemployed

At home

Parental or maternal leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other (including OČD)

Student

Working

Unemployed

At home

Parental or maternal leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other (including OČD)

D
iff

u
se

d
Se

p
ar

at
ed

Se
g

re
g

at
ed

10.3
6.5

3.8
7.0

60.4
56.6

0.9
3.7

14.8
11.4

6.5
5.7

3.6
5.6

2.5
0.5

10.2
8.6

8.8
9.6

55.1
53.5

11.8
10.4

8.4

0.5

10.2

8.2

56.6
52.8

13.4

1.6
1.2

11.0
10.0

10.0
8.2

5.6
5.3

1.9
1.2

5.6
7.5

2.5

0.9
0.9

4.3
4.4

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?
Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

2005

2010

Page 113

9-4.eps


this was increased by 5%) here was multiple-times
growth in the share of persons at home (up to 3.7% of
all those surveyed age 15+ years), and in the overall struc-
ture of segregated settlements the proportion of disability
pensioners and other economic statuses expanded
moderately (each by approximately 2%).

Results indicate that it’s as if upon comparisons with
the situation five years ago, change occurred most in seg-
regated Roma communities, and involved predomi-
nately an unfavourable change (a relatively sharp drop
in those studying and growth in persons at home, on a
disability pension and other statuses). The one favourable
trend consisted in a strengthening of those working and
in a small share of unemployed, however, this could be
only seemingly favourable, it does not have to correspond
in the end with a shift from unemployed to working and
it says nothing about the quality of the work defined by
job security and social protection (see the following sec-
tion). Also, even after growth, the share working in this
environment is still very low– only 7%.

Whether such a structure of economic activity is the
regional standard can be addressed by a comparison of
the average values for the selected three types of Roma
communities with the geographically close general
population (Graph 9.4). The share of declared working
and unemployed obtained for both groups was com-
pletely reversed: while for the surveyed Roma popula-
tion the results showed 9.9% working to 54.3% unem-
ployed, in the case of the geographically close general

population this was 44.7% working to 7.4% unem-
ployed. Thus, despite the approximately equal conditions
in the external environment, the resultant method of con-
necting to the labour market for the compared sets is di-
ametrically different. Overall, more surveyed residents of
the Roma communities (up to 64.2%) were placed in the
labour force (i.e. among the economically active – work-
ing and unemployed together) than residents of the ge-
ographically close general population (52.1%). While near-
ly every other person from the general population was
economically inactive, among residents of Roma com-
munities this was only every third person.

A gigantic difference was also found for the catego-
ry of old-age pensioners: in the Roma population they
made up only 8.3%, but for the geographically close gen-
eral population this was 29.3%. On the other hand, in the
surveyed Roma population there was again more indi-
viduals on maternal or parental leave – by 7.2% (10.9% of
them drew parental leave for care of a child versus 3.7%
from the general population), as well as persons at home
(2% versus 0.5%).Those studying had a higher represen-
tation in the geographically close general population (9.1%
to 69%), despite the incomparable higher share of the
youngest age group in the Roma communities. Disabili-
ty pensioners moderately predominated on the side of res-
idents of Roma communities (5.2% to 4.3%). Despite the
geographically nearness, the structure by declared eco-
nomic status was determined for the Roma and the gen-
eral populations was found to be markedly different.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N S O F R O M A H O U S E H O L D S I N S L O V A K I A 2 0 1 0

121

Graph 9.4
Structure of the Roma population age 15+ years by economic status – comparison with geographically close
general population (in %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Students

Working

Unemployed

At home

Parental or maternal leave

Old-age pension

Disability pension

Other (including OČD)

9.1
6.9

9.9
44.7

54.3

2

7.4

0.5

3.7
10.9

8.3
29.3

5.2
4.3

1.1
2.3

Question: What is your economic standing at the moment?
Note: OČD = caring for a household member.

Roma population age 15+

Geographically close
general population age 15+

Page 224

RADIČOVÁ, I., 2011: Chudoba Rómov vo vzťahu k trhu prá-
ce v SR. In: Sociológia 33, �. 5, pp. 439-456.

REIMERG, C. W. 1985: Cultural Differences in Labou Force
Participation among married Women. In: American Eco-
nomic Association Papers and Proceedings, No. 75, pp.
251-255.

Report on Equality between Women and Men 2010.
Brusel: EK.

REVENGA, A. et al., 2006: Poverty and ethnicity: a cross-coun-
try study of Roma poverty in Central Europe. Washing-
ton DC: World Bank.

REF, 2009: School as a Ghetto, Systemic overrepresentation
of Roma in special education in Slovakia. Budapest.

RINGOLD, D. et al., 2004: Roma in an Expanding Europe: Break-
ing the Poverty Cycle. Washington DC: World Bank.

SCHOENI, R., 1998: Labour market Assimilation of Immigrant
Women. In: Industrial and Labour Relations Review, �. 51,
pp. 483-504.

SCHAEFFEL, D., 2009: Svinia v �iernobielom: slovenskí Rómovia
a ich susedia. Prešov: Centrum antropologických
výskumov.

SprÆva o sociÆlnej situÆcii obyvate�ov SR 2010. 2011, Brati-
slava: MPSVR SR.

Smernica Rady 2000/43/ES z 29. jœna 2000, ktorÆ usta-
novuje zÆsadu rovnakØho zaobchÆdzania s osoba-
mi bez oh�adu na ich rasový alebo etnický pôvod.
Rada EÚ 2000a.

Smernica Rady 2000/78/ES z 27. novembra 2000, ktorÆ usta-
novuje v�eobecný rÆmec pre rovnakØ zaobchÆdzanie v
zamestnaní a povolaní. Rada EÚ 2000b.

Smernica Rady 2004/113/ES z 13. decembra 2004 o vykonÆ-
vaní zÆsady rovnakØho zaobchÆdzania s mu�mi a �ena-
mi v prístupe k tovarom a slu�bÆm a k ich poskytovaniu.
Rada EÚ 2004.

SprÆva o stave zdravotníctva na Slovensku. Bratislava: Mi-
nisterstvo zdravotníctva SR 2011.

ŠKOBLA, D. – LEONIKAS, T. – ŠTĚPÁNKOVÁ, M., 2008: Etni-
cita ako �tatistický ukazovate� pri monitorovaní �ivotných
podmienok a diskriminÆcie. Bratislava: UNDP, FES.

StratØgia Slovenskej republiky pre integrÆciu Rómov do roku
2020. ÚV SR 2011.

�truktœra miezd v SR 2010. 2011, Bratislava: Štatistický
úrad SR.

Tie�ovÆ sprÆva pre Výbor pre odstrÆnenie diskriminÆcie
�ien. 2008, Bratislava: skupina 8 MVO.

TOMATOVÁ, I., 2004: Na ved�aj�ej ko�aji. Je proces za-
ra�ovania rómskych detí do �peciÆlnych zÆkladných �kôl
znevýhod�ujœcim �inite�om? Bratislava: SGI.

UNDP, 2002: The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe:
Avoiding the Dependency Trap. Regional Human De-
velopment Report. Bratislava: UNDP.

UNDP, 2003: Únik z pasce zÆvislosti. Rómovia v strednej
a východnej Európe, Bratislava: UNDP.

UNDP, 2006: ZamestnÆvanie Rómov: NÆzory podnikov, Bra-
tislava.

UNDP, 2006: At Risk: Roma and Displaced in Southeast Eu-
rope, Bratislava.

Uznesenie Európskeho parlamentu 12. marca 2009 o vode v sœ-
vislosti s konaním 5. svetovØho fóra o vode v Istanbule,
v d�och 16.-22. marca 2009. Európsky parlament 2009.

VAŠEČKA, M (ed.), 2002: Čačipen pal o Roma. Súhrnná sprá-
va o Rómoch na Slovensku. Bratislava: IVO.

VAŠEČKA, M. – REPOVÁ, I. – DŽAMBAZOVIČ, R., 2000: In�ti-
tucionÆlna bÆza rie�enia rómskej problematiky na Slo-
vensku v sœ�asnosti, IOM.

Zdravotnícka ro�enka SR 2009. 2010, Bratislava: Národné cen-
trum zdravotníckych informácií. [online] <http://www.
nczisk.sk/Documents/rocenky/rocenka_2009.pdf>.

R E P O R T O N T H E L I V I N G C O N D I T I O N S O F R O M A H O U S E H O L D S I N S L O V A K I A 2 0 1 0

233

Page 225

UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre
Grosslingova 35
811 09 Bratislava
Slovak Republic

Tel.:(421-2)59337-111
Fax.:(421-2)59337-450
http://europeandcis.undp.org

ISBN 978-80-89263-11-0

Similer Documents