Crisis Monitoring Survey 2010
Bulgaria, 2010
Get MicrodataIdentification
BGR_2010_CMS-R2_v01_M
Crisis Monitoring Survey 2010
Round 2
| Name | Country code |
|---|---|
| Bulgaria | BGR |
Other Household Survey [hh/oth]
Countries in Eastern and Southeastern Europe have been particularly affected by the global economic crisis. In response to crisis, governments, donors, and civil society organizations have been cooperating to conduct Crisis Monitoring Surveys that assess social and economic impacts of the crisis on households and individuals. Crisis Monitoring Surveys rely on modules that are specifically tailored to assess household circumstances in a crisis and provide real-time, nationally representative data that can inform policy.
Stand-alone Crisis Monitoring Surveys have been conducted in Turkey, Montenegro, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Bulgaria and Tajikistan. A number of countries (Latvia, Croatia, Serbia, and Armenia) have also included Crisis Monitoring Modules into routinely conducted Labor Force or Household Budget Surveys. In Romania, Serbia, and Turkey, representative household surveys have been combined with non-representative qualitative data collection to understand the effect of the crisis on vulnerable groups, including Roma.
In Bulgaria, Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS) included three rounds conducted every six months to track the impact of the economic crisis over time. The baseline data was collected during the first round in February 2010. The other rounds were fielded in October 2010 and February 2011.
The Bulgarian Longitudinal Inclusive Society Survey (BLISS) was conducted in March and April 2013, as a continuation of Crisis Monitoring Survey, with an additional module about the skills of the adult population in Bulgaria.
BLISS and all three rounds of CMS are documented in the World Bank Microdata Library.
At the onset of the 2008-2009 global economic crisis, the Open Society Institute-Sofia and the World Bank partnered to implement Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS). The CMS is a multi-topic household survey that followed three nationally representative cross-sections of about 2,400 households, including a panel of about 1,700 Bulgarian households, during February 2010, October 2010 and February 2011. The survey tracked the incidence of income shocks, the coping strategies used by affected households to mitigate the income losses, and the impact of public polices - social protection in particular - in alleviating the effects of the crisis. In particular, the survey investigated in some depth how households used the labor market to mitigate the impact of the crisis, whether formal social protection programs protected households against sliding into poverty, and the effectiveness of informal safety nets.
Given the special need to study the more vulnerable ethnic minority Roma population, an independent "booster sample" of about 300 households was selected in settlements and neighborhoods identified as predominantly Roma.
The second round of Crisis Monitoring Survey was conducted in October 2010. The data from this round is documented here.
Sample survey data [ssd]
- households,
- individuals
Version
v01, edited, anonymous datasets
Scope
The scope of the study includes:
- demographic characteristics of household members,
- labor,
- housing,
- assets,
- social assistance and unemployment,
- informal transfers and support,
- other income,
- credit,
- effects of crisis and coping strategies,
- subjective questions,
- income shocks,
- labor market shocks,
- financial shocks.
Coverage
National
Producers and sponsors
| Name |
|---|
| Open Society Institute-Sofia |
| World Bank |
| Name |
|---|
| Open Society Institute-Sofia |
| World Bank |
Sampling
Two samples were used in Crisis Monitoring Survey: main sample and booster sample.
The main sample was created in two stages.
First, the population was stratified by district (NUTS 3) and type of settlement. In Bulgaria, there are 28 administrative districts. For the type of settlement three categories were defined - rural, urban (with population under 50,000) and metropolitan (with population over 50,000). Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, is include in the metropolitan category. In this way 28 x 3=84 categories (strata) were defined and proportional allocation was made. The method of selecting settlements from each stratum is simple random sampling with replacement, weighted by the number of households in the settlement.
In the second stage, voting stations were chosen in each settlement. Voting stations were used as a type of cluster. Voting stations were selected with probability proportional to the number of voters in each station. In each cluster, (voting station), 20 household addresses were randomly selected from the list of all addresses in the station. The first 10 addresses, which had to be visited mandatorily, formed the main list. If there was a refusal in a household of the main list, this household had to be replaced with an address from the list of reserves (the last 10 addresses).
For the Roma booster sample, an expert database was used. It contained basic information for all segregated neighborhoods in the country like locality (district, municipality and settlement), an experts' approximation for the number of population, number of households, number of houses and other characteristics. The planned booster size sample was 300 households. Simple random sampling without replacement was used in segregated neighborhoods, weighted by their population. In this way, 30 segregated neighborhoods in 20 districts were selected. In each district, 10 randomly sampled households had to be interviewed. GPS sampling was used to identify households in each cluster.
In the second round, six months later, all the 2,384 households in the main sample were visited again whether or not they agreed to take place in the survey again. To complete the list with households from second round to 2,400, some additional addresses were drawn out in the same sampling procedure, in the same clusters as in the first round. Therefore, in the second round, there were two types of households, taking place in the survey: first, these who were interviewed in the both rounds; second, these only from the second round (additional ones).
In the second round, all 2,384 households from the first round were visited again. From this sample, 1,852 households (78 percent of the original respondents) were interviewed. The remaining 22 percent were completed with new addresses and each household that was not interviewed was replaced with a new one in the same cluster.
Detailed information about weighting procedures is available in the document "Sample Design and Weighting Procedures for Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey (CMS) and the Bulgarian Longitudinal Inclusive Society Survey (BLISS)" in Related Materials.
Survey instrument
The survey collected information about household demographics (roster), labor market participation and earnings, housing, durables, access to and receipts of social protection programs, informal safety nets and remittances, other income, credit, self-reported impact of the crisis, coping and mitigation mechanisms.
The Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey combines modules that have been used in crisis surveys in a number of countries (including crisis-specific labor, credit, and coping strategies modules) with uniquely detailed modules on income and social assistance.
Data collection
| Start | End |
|---|---|
| 2010-10 | 2010-10 |
Depositor information
| Name | Affiliation |
|---|---|
| Social Protect & Labor - GP | World Bank |
Data Access
Use of the dataset must be acknowledged using a citation which would include:
- the Identification of the Primary Investigator
- the title of the survey (including country, acronym and year of implementation)
- the survey reference number
- the source and date of download
Example:
Open Society Institute-Sofia, World Bank. Bulgaria Crisis Monitoring Survey 2010, Round 2 (CMS-R2). Ref. BGR_2010_CMS-R2_v01_M. Dataset downloaded from [URL] on [date].
Disclaimer and copyrights
The user of the data acknowledges that the original collector of the data, the authorized distributor of the data, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Contacts
| Name | Affiliation | |
|---|---|---|
| Silvia Guallar Artal | GSPDR, World Bank | sguallarartal@worldbank.org |
| Victoria Levin | GSPDR, World Bank | vlevin@worldbank.org |
Metadata production
DDI_BGR_2010_CMS-R2_v01_M_WB
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Development Data Group | World Bank | Study documentation |
2015-09-01
Metadata version
v01 (September 2015)