Undp Annual Report

Annual Report – 2008
web edition
Bosnia and Herzegovina Assistant Resident Representative: Armin SIRČO
United Nations Development Programme Project Coordinator: Tarik ZAIMOVIĆ; Mersiha ĆURČIĆ
Review by: Peter van RUYSSEVELDT, Deputy Resident
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM Representative; Armin SIRČO, Assistant Resident Representative
Annual Report – 2008 Editors: Tarik ZAIMOVIĆ; Desmond MAURER
Authors: Dina DURAKOVIĆ M.A.; Adnan EFENDIĆ M.Sc.
Aleksandar DRAGANIĆ M.A.; Ivan BARBALIĆ M.A.
Although publication of this Report is supported by the United Fahrudin MEMIĆ; Edin ŠABANOVIĆ M.Sc.
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) the opinions stated Translation: Desmond MAURER
herein do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Cover design: Tamara KOREN
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) DTP & Layout: Samira SALIHBEGOVIĆ
3
CONTENTS
Annual Report 2008

FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................7
I POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH ....................................................................................................................................................15
1. A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis ....................................................................................15
2. SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong international criticism ..................................................................16
3. Public pessimism prevails..............................................................................................................................................18
4. Support for European integration high ........................................................................................................................18
5. Support for the SNSD down ..........................................................................................................................................19
II INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BiH............................................................................................................................................21
1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive political crisis ..................................................................................21
2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government institutions ..................................................................................22
3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines ..........................................................................................................................24
III ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BiH ................................................................................................................................................27
1. Industrial production up ..............................................................................................................................................28
2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem ..............................................................................................28
3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of BiH reserves fall................................................................29
4. Trade deficit at worrying level ......................................................................................................................................30
5. The public see economy as doing poorly. ....................................................................................................................30
6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and getting more so ..................................................................33
IV THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BiH ..................................................................................................................................35
1. Economic situation worsens during 2008 ....................................................................................................................35
2. Idle capacity in every second company.........................................................................................................................36
3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse...........................................................................................36
4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax burden hamper private sector operations ......................37
5. High direct and indirect costs of domestic institutions ................................................................................................38
V INCOMES AND SOCIAL WELFARE............................................................................................................................................41
1. Fewer households without income during 2008 ..........................................................................................................43
2. Public expectations subject to various influences during 2008....................................................................................44
3. Purchasing power and living standards unchanged through 2008 ..............................................................................47
4. Social protection and minimum living standards largely unchanged ..........................................................................50
VI SOCIAL INCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................................53
1. Some aspects of social inclusion ..................................................................................................................................53
2. Minority and majority samples share same views on the economy ............................................................................56
3. Pessimism over the political situation ..........................................................................................................................58
4. Ethnic identity and citizenship in conflict for most ......................................................................................................59
VII ETHNIC RELATIONS ..............................................................................................................................................................61
1. The Ethnic Stability Index..............................................................................................................................................61
2. Exploitation of ethnic divisions in political life continues ............................................................................................62
3. Reported discrimination falls over year as a whole......................................................................................................63
4. Support for refugee return recovers ............................................................................................................................63
5. Measures of social distance between ethnic groups improve......................................................................................64
6. Separatism and Nationalism ........................................................................................................................................65
VIII PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY ......................................................................................................................................69
1. The Security Stability Index ..........................................................................................................................................69
2. Concern over public safety issues at beginning in the year fades as year goes on ......................................................70
3. Rates fall for most crimes, for most categories of the population ..............................................................................71
4 2008
% I quarter II quarter III quarter IV quarter
Annual Report 2008
Political stability indicators

Politically speaking, the situation in BiH is getting worse -14 -17 0.9 12.4
Would emigrate -3.4 -4 3.4 -1.2
View EU membership with hope 8.9 1.8 -7.4 -3.5
Think EU membership is important for political stability in BiH 1.8 -1.3 -1.8 0
Support the process of joining the EU 4.5 -2.7 -1.6 0.3
Institutional approval ratings

Confidence in Presidency 4.3 -3.1 0.2 1.9
Confidence in Council of Ministers 4.9 -4.3 1.4 2.9
Confidence in FBiH Parliament 5.9 -5.2 2 0.5
Confidence in FBiH Government 6.6 -5.6 1 2.8
Confidence in RS National Assembly -1.6 -4.7 1.3 2.4
Confidence in RS Government -2.4 -4.3 1 2.2
Confidence in OHR -0.3 -6.5 2.6 2.7
Confidence in EU -0.3 -3.5 0.6 5.5
Economic and fiscal stability indicators

Industrial production 6 6 7 8
Unemployment 2 2 8 3
Retail prices 6 7 8 8
Foreign reserves 30
Balance of trade 5 2 1
Incomes and social welfare indicators

Average wages 7 4 1 3
Consumer basket/average wage 1.5
Average pension 7 7 1 6
Minimum pension 15 2 2 2
Average pension/average wage 3
Would emigrate 10 10 10
Would protest over low income 5 7
Households with < 500 KM a month 7 10 15
Ethnic relations indicators

Human rights violations related to ethnicity (reported) -3.5 1.6 -0.1 0.7
Accept return by refugees and displaced 2.5 -1.5 -5 4.8
Willing to share country with other ethnic groups 0.5 1.5 -0.4
Strong pride in being citizen of BiH -3.9 -5.3 -2.8 0.6
Concern that war might break out again -5 -10 6.6 4.5
Public support for ethnic parties -1.2 3.9 8.3 -10
Security indicators
Illegal behaviour by police -3.9 1.8 -4.3 1
Level of crimes against property and person
(reported by our sample) 1 3.9 -0.1 -1.4
Number of requests for police assistance -1.9 0.3 0.9 -0.8
Public satisfaction with police assistance -9.3 -30
5
FOREWORD
Annual Report 2008

As 2008 closes behind us and the Early Warning System project finishes its eight year of monitoring public
opinion in the key areas of politics, the economy, social security, ethnic relations, and public safety, we are
struck by the degree to which the situation has remained unchanged over the past several years. The list of
most important current issues remains much the same, including as it does:
- the process of integration with Europe and the various associated reform processes,
- the continued failure to revise the post-Dayton settlement in a way that is acceptable to the
representatives of all three constitutive peoples, while guaranteeing political stability and effective
government,
- the establishment of local ownership of and responsibility for the political process.
One may, certainly, add to this list the worsening economic situation and the potential impact of the global
crisis. In the foreword to last year’s annual report we pointed out the extent to which the political situation
here has benefited in recent years from an economic cushion. We warned that this could not be expected to
be the case for much longer. It is clearly no longer the case. As the economy shifts from a cushioning to an
exacerbating role, we may expect the structural incapacity of the Bosnian political system agreed at Dayton to
become increasingly clear. Dayton probably represented the best deal possible at the time and it did end a war.
What is more, some of the compromises achieved at Dayton continue to be necessary. But some elements of
the agreement have served their function and there is a need to move beyond them. Dayton must be built
upon in such a way that citizenship and not nationality becomes the structuring principle.
Armin Sirčo
Assistant Resident Representative,

UNDP BiH
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Annual Report 2008

As we enter the new year, with the global economy in the throes of crisis, the promise of a new
geopolitical order on the horizon, and the American neo-conservative establishment that has dominated
US and so World foreign policy over the past eight years set to be replaced by “pragmatic idealism” and
“smart power,” there are unfortunately signs, particularly for Bosnia-Herzegovina, that this may
nonetheless be a case of “Ring out the old, ring in more of the same.”
Signs that this may be the case include continued political gridlock and continued use of radical and
ethnically divisive rhetoric, as the mandate of the Office of the High Representative was extended with all
powers intact and the European Union presented another critical progress report. There have been
reports that government finances are facing difficulties, particularly in the Federation. This is unlikely to
be helped by the removal of customs on EU goods. This does not provide a particularly favourable political
environment for dealing with the economic crisis, whose impact will only be the worse, given the already
high (real) unemployment rate, the degree of unused capacity in the economy, and the role played in
economic activity by casual or part-time or temporary labour. The prospect of public dissatisfaction
increasing as we enter the spring and finer weather seems realistic.
Graph 1
BH Stability Indices
As the graph makes clear, there has been no major change in overall stability in Bosnia and
Herzegovina over the year. In fact, it has improved, recovering fairly steadily from the low in November
2007. The main Stability Index thus increased from 57 points at the end of 2007 to 59 in both the first two
quarters of 2008 and to 60 in both the third and fourth quarter. The individual indices are, as usual, mixed,
but with the exception of the Ethnic Stability Index generally show an upward trend in the early part of
the year and no change in the second half. It is worth noting that while the ethnic, economic, and social
stability indices suffered a low in November 2007, from which they have since been recovering, the
Political Stability Index underwent its collapse in mid-2008. While it has recovered somewhat in the latter
half of the year, that recovery is relatively weak.
This should not be taken to mean that the situation has been improving. Just that it has not been
getting even worse since these various lows. Our indices are indices of stability in the various areas, not
of health. There was an objective boost to stability in all areas during the second two quarters of the year,
following the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU. That the indices
stagnated in the latter half of the year is due to the fact that signing the SAA has been followed by little
if any further progress, and the EU and the international community more widely have become
increasingly impatient and explicit in their criticism of domestic politicians, on the one hand, while
increased spending on public salaries and transfers has taken the edge off the significant inflation that
marked the beginning of the year and the economic indicators suggest a time lag in the impact of the
8 global economic crisis, which has begun to affect business but has yet to impinge fully on the public
consciousness, on the other.
Annual Report 2008
As the following six graphs make clear, the current modest upward turn in the indices does not offer
significant grounds for optimism. The graphs show the trends in the indices (taken as annual averages) since
Graph 2 Graph 3
The BiH Stability Index and trendline BiH Political Stability Index and trendline
Graph 4 Trends in the Economic Stability Index Graph 5

BiH Social Stability Index and trendline
for BiH
Graph 6 Graph 7
BiH Security Stability Index and trendline BiH Ethnic Stability Index and trendline
2000. It is clear that only the Ethnic Stability Index follows an essentially positive pattern. The others for the 9
most part improved considerably in the early years of the decade, then entered a decline in 2002 that
Annual Report 2008

gathered pace in 2004-2005 as both the economic and political situation worsened. There was a modest rally
in 2006, after which the downward momentum was restored. The final upward turn in the BiH Stability Index
is clearly due to the relative health of the economic and social welfare indicators, which can hardly be
expected to continue. Given the intractability of the political situation and the impact of the global financial
and economic crisis, it is difficult to see how the downward movement evident since 2001 will not continue.
Turning now to the individual sections of our report, 2008 was clearly a year of political instability and
profound institutional crisis. Our Political Stability Index fell to its lowest recorded level in the second
quarter (48 points) and, as the above graph shows, the average for the year was also the lowest yet, at 50.5
points. This was in spite of the fact that the year saw an apparent culmination of two years of negotiation
and political drama over the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement the European Union.
Legislation for police reform was finally passed and the country was able to proceed with finalising the SAA.
It was, however, the last country in the region to do so. Moreover, the aftermath has proven anything but
smooth. Through most of the year politicians proved incapable or unwilling to move ahead with the
obligations involved in signing, in particular moving forward on constitutional reform. Instead, nationalist
rhetoric was ramped up and divisions came increasingly to the fore both between and within the entities.
The pattern of divisive rhetoric was maintained, not least because of the local elections held in
October. The results of these elections changed little in the balance of power, though it was clear that
both the SNSD and the SBiH lost ground to more moderate partners. Nothing came, however, of talk
about restructuring the ruling coalitions at federal or state level.
The political atmosphere in the country was recognised with concern by members of the international
community previously active within Bosnia and Herzegovina and by relevant institutions of the European
Union and the wider international community, namely the European Commission, the Peace
Implementation Council, and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. A number of resolutions
were passed condemning the failure to meet various conditions under various processes or to progress
past the signing of the SAA as well as any attempts to undermine the status of either the state of Bosnia
and Herzegovina or either of its constituent entities. The High Representative, however, did not translate
the concern of the international community into punitive action against any of those responsible for the
unsettled political conditions in the country. In early November, the European Commission adopted a
Progress Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina that made clear how little progress it saw as having been made
over the year and how much damage had been done by the irresponsible and reckless behaviour of leading
politicians within the country. Moreover, the country and its leading politicians were warned that, unless
things changed considerably and soon, they had little to expect of the European Union. Finally, we may
note, that at the end of November the European Union foreign and defence ministers announced their
intention of strengthening EU involvement in the country, but without specifics.
Other important events during the year that further complicated an already complicated situation
included the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and, to a lesser extent, the arrest of
wartime Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžič in July.
In the final quarter of the year, the leaders of three leading ethnic parties, Milorad Dodik, Sulejman
Tihić, and Dragan Čavić, agreed a series of compromises in Prud over the most important political issues
and those most directly related to European Union concerns, including constitutional reform, the status
of Brčko district, the status of national property, etc. This agreement was warmly welcomed by the
international community, rather less so by other domestic politicians, parties, and the public generally. It
remains to be seen what practical results it will have.
As a result of the political ferment over the year, it will come as no surprise to learn that both federal
and state level were essentially subject to gridlock, with great difficulty passing legislation. Moreover, as
the international financial crisis began to bite, the fragility of the budgetary position of the Federation and
to some extent the state-level became clearer. In fact, the Federal Minister for Finance has issued several
warnings that the Federation was facing possible bankruptcy.
The situation was certainly not helped by the constant talk of restructuring or dissolution of the
coalitions at state and federal level, nor by the fact that no restructuring took place. As a consequence,
10 there could be little surprise that the Peace Implementation Council announced that the Office of the
High Representative would not be closing in 2009. There has, moreover, been a growing consensus within
Annual Report 2008
the Federation and in some parts of the international community that the crisis of the last year or so has
made clear that the Office of the High Representative has a crucial role to play in ensuring the stability of
the country for some time to come. Given the relatively passive role played by the current incumbent,
however, it is not clear what that role will be precisely.
Overall, our survey results are in line with the generally poor political conditions in the country over
the year. The very pessimistic public mood already evident in 2007 continued through 2008. At the
beginning of the year, nearly 80% of the Bosniak majority area sample and nearly 60% of both the Croat
and Serb majority area samples were of the opinion that political life is headed in the wrong direction.
This softened somewhat in the middle of the year, but hardened again towards the end, when again 80%
of the Bosniak Sample and approximately 50% of both the Serb and Croat samples were of the view that
politically things were getting worse (see Tables I and II for political stability in annex). This is in spite of
the signing of the SAA. This pessimism was also evident with regard to the economy (see below).
The public continue to see salvation in integration with Europe. More than 75% of the total sample
said they supported the process through the year. Support was particularly high amongst Bosniaks
(around 90% from the year). The percentages for the Croat and Serb samples were in ranges from 65 to
78% and from 56.9% to 67.1%, respectively. This, no doubt, reflects the fact that a certain percentage of
these two groups see salvation in neighbouring countries rather than membership of a trans-national
union. It is worth noting that Serb sample support for integration with Europe dropped 10 points over
the year. The views of the ethnic samples as to how important EU membership is for political stability
here follow the same pattern. Even less welcome is the fact that fewer of the total sample now view the
process of integration with Europe from the perspective of hope than previously: down from 73 to 64%.
In fact, only 50% of the Serb sample viewed the process with hope, compared to 75% of the Bosniak and
65% of the Croat samples. (See Tables VI, VII, and VIII for political stability section in annex).
When it comes to support for political parties, the main change was the declining support for the
SNSD, which began the year with 45% support in the Republika Srpska and ended it with just 24%. As a
result it lost its position as the most popular party in the country to the SDP. The support leaked by the
SNSD did not transfer to any other party, its former supporters preferring to declare as “don’t know” or
declining to answer questions in this regard. (See Table IX for political stability section in annex).
It may therefore not surprise that both the Serb and Bosniak samples were increasingly critical
regarding the parties in power over the year, with particularly few Bosniaks taking the view that the parties
in power were in any way successful in defining or implementing key reforms, capable of meeting the
conditions required for progress to integration with Europe, or deserving to stay in power. The Croats were
less critical than in previous years, indicating a certain consolidation of Croat support behind the HDZ BIH.
This is reflected in the relatively low approval ratings of various government institutions through the
year: around 40% for the state level institutions, 38% for federal institutions, 39% for RS institutions, and
around 51% for the municipal level. The showing of the municipal level, relative to the others, is largely due
to a spike after the local elections. As previously, at least since the SNSD took power in the Republika Srpska
and to a large extent at state-level, the Serb sample showed the most confidence in all levels of government,
including federal institutions, followed by the Croat sample, with the Bosniaks considerably behind. This is
indicative of the extent to which the RS sample support the SNSD policy that less is more, when it comes to
central government. International institutions fared a little better, with overall support ranging from 38% for
the United States to 46% for UNDP. Results were similar with regard to perceived corruption in government
and international institutions. (Tables I and II and V on institutional stability in annex).
Finally, with regard to political and institutional stability, we note that attitudes towards the Office of
the High Representative remained split on ethnic lines. While an average of 44% of the overall sample
expressed approval of OHR’s job performance, this was due to higher support amongst Bosniaks
counterbalancing lower support amongst Serbs. Croats were somewhere in between. Even amongst
Bosniaks, the approval rating was only around 50%. (Table II on institutional stability in annex).
Much the same pattern is true of approval for the various OHR-led reform measures, with the
Bosniak approval ratings in and around 50%, compared to Serb ratings in and around 30%. The pattern
regarding the powers of the High Representative is even clearer, with a considerable majority (about 70%) 11
of the Serb sample in favour of reducing the powers of the office, compared to a considerable majority of
Annual Report 2008

Bosniak's in favour of increasing them or at least leaving them as they are. Croats again were to be found
somewhere in between. (Tables VI and VII on institutional stability in annex).
When we come to economic stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we find at first glance a rather more
positive picture, as the Economic Stability Index recovered over the year from a low of 43 points in
November 2007, spending the year in the range from 46-48 points. The improving or at least not
deteriorating Economic Stability Index is in part due to the relatively buoyant economic indicators for the
year and in part to the slowness of public opinion to react to the global economic crisis. For example:
• Industrial production was up in both entities over the year, 8% in the Federation and 17% in the
Republika Srpska. The increase in the Republika Srpska was in large part due to an astonishing
doubling of production in December 2008 compared to December 2007. (Table I on economic
stability in annex).
• While unemployment remains a major macroeconomic problem, there was a near 10% reduction
in official unemployment over the year, with 40,000 fewer unemployed people in November 2008
that there had been in late 2007. Most of this reduction was in the Federation. (Table II on
economic stability in annex).
• The news regarding inflation was more mixed, with strong growth in prices during the first half of
the year, particularly in response to international pressure on food and fuel prices. This affected
food, utilities, and service industries most and was hardest on the poorest families. As in other
parts of the world, this pressure eased during the second half of the year. (Table III on economic
• Central Bank reserves continued to rise over most of the year, beginning to fall only in the final quarter,
when they lost some 500 million in total. By the end of the year, however, they had begun to climb
again, so the nature of the long-term trend is unclear. (Graph III on economic stability in annex).
• The most worrying indicator is, as always, the trade deficit and the export-import ratio. The ratio
was as low as 41% and the country generated a more than 9.5 billion KM deficit for the year.
Further liberalisation of trade is set to take place in early 2009, particularly with the removal of
customs on imports coming from the European Union, which already make up a very large
proportion of total imports and exports .This will hardly make things any easier, particularly with
regard to the government's current fiscal problems. (Table V on economic stability in annex).
This situation is reflected in the moderate pessimism expressed by our sample in all surveys
conducted through 2008. More than half took the view that there had been no major changes in the
economy over the previous year, while a third or more described the economy as deteriorating. Although
generally negative, public opinion regarding the economy was, however, subject to moderate
improvement (i.e. reducing pessimism) during the first three quarters. This was halted in the fourth
quarter, as awareness of the likely consequences of the global crisis filtered through. The federal sample
was moderately more pessimistic than the Republika Srpska sample, with Bosniak majority areas the most
pessimistic, followed by Serb majority areas, and then Croat majority areas. (Table VI on economic
When it comes to expectations, the public was also generally pessimistic, but not increasingly so.
Even at the end of the year, only 25% said they expect things actually to get worse economically speaking,
while the majority, as usual, expects more of the same. Moreover, the sample became somewhat less
concerned than it was about the possibility of rising prices, though 63% still expect them to rise. As many
as 20% even expect their income to improve. On the other hand, on average more than 80% of our
sample expect not to be able to save over the coming year. (Tables VII-XII on economic stability in annex).
Our questions regarding the efficiency of institutions and their economic impact on the public also
reveal a disturbing picture. In general, a majority of our sample think that institutions in Bosnia cost more
than they should, both in money and in the time required to carry out tasks. Asked to quantify this, they
said they add somewhere between 10 and 30% to their living costs in direct costs and an additional 10 to
30% in indirect costs. A not insignificant percentage of the population therefore said that government
institutions add as much as 60% to their cost of living. This is after taxation and contributions. When it
12 comes to the institutions responsible for fiscal and monetary policy, the Central Bank and the Indirect
Taxation Authority were best ranked in terms of their job performance through the year. Worst ranked
Annual Report 2008
were the Privatisation Agencies, the Employment Bureau, and the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency.
This makes clear that the public see the benefit of the monetary and fiscal agencies responsible for
providing a stable framework for the economy, but not of those tasked with hands-on stimulation of the
business environment, and perhaps there is some justice in that view. (Tables XIII-XVIII on economic
Our survey of 150 top managers tended over the year to display a rather bleaker picture of the
business environment and economy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the end of the year as much as 70%
of the business sample was describing the economic situation in the country as having deteriorated, while
only 4% described it as better than last year. Business sector expectations for first six months of 2009 are
hardly any more optimistic. 62% of the sample think things will deteriorate and only 3% expect them to
improve. (Tables I and II on business sector stability in annex).
This is reflected in the fact that there is increasing idle capacity in the economy, with 50% of
companies underutilising existing resources. Financial indicators are no better, with nearly 30% of the
sample saying their results were worse than last year. 43% said they expect them to get even worse.
There has also been an increase in company debt, particularly in the RS. All together these indicators
contribute to the fact that only 69% of the sample in December 2008 said they had made a profit. This
compares to around 80% in 2007. These indicators generally deteriorated over the year, suggestive of an
ongoing slump. (Tables IV, V, and VI on business sector stability in annex).
Companies put much of the blame for the situation on the various levels of government and the fact
that they are more of a hindrance than a help to the conduct of business. The sample regularly find state-
level least helpful and municipal level most helpful. When asked about specific barriers to business, again
it seemed clear that most of the worst obstacles related to administration or government rather than
general economic conditions. In the polls of 2008, the focus tended to be on the courts as an obstacle to
business, followed by the tax burden, corruption, and in fourth place unfair business practices. These four
factors have consistently been identified as the main obstacles, though there is some difference as to the
ranking from quarter to quarter. Moreover, they were consistently identified as such by more than 80%
of the sample. (Tables VII, VIII and IX on business sector stability in annex).
Finally we may note that business was as critical as the public of the high direct and indirect costs
associated with domestic institutions. A very high percentage of companies said such costs add anywhere
between 10 and 40% to their costs, seriously affecting their competitiveness under tougher global
economic conditions. The percentage was higher in the Federation than in the RS. It is perhaps no great
surprise to find that the most efficient institutions, according to the business sample, were the Central
Bank, the Indirect Taxation Authority, and the entity Tax Administrations, while the least effective were
the legal system, the Privatisation Agencies, and the Social Insurance Funds. Nor is it particularly
surprising to find that nearly 70% of companies admit to using informal connections and contacts to get
things done. In fact, they have been increasingly willing to admit to using such means over the year and
particularly since the third quarter. (Tables Xff on business sector stability in annex).
Next we come to incomes and social welfare, where the situation through the year was at least
apparently stable. Like the Economic Stability Index, the Social Stability Index recovered early in the year
from a low in November 2007 and maintained its new position, higher than the low but still relatively
weak compared to its average in earlier years. This is not unrelated to the issue of household income, as
there was a reduction in the number of households without any income or with less than 500 KM per
month, as average salaries increased over the year, keeping pace with increasing living costs (Tables I and
II on incomes and social welfare in annex). Moreover, pensions increased during the year, particularly the
highest pensions (Table XIIIa on incomes and social welfare in annex). We have already mentioned a
number of the other important factors, particularly the decline over the year in the percentage of the
sample who expect the economic situation to deteriorate, down in Bosniak majority areas from 70.8% in
late 2007 to 39.7% in late 2008, and from 46.1% to 20.1% in Croat majority areas, while unchanged in Serb
majority areas at around 28% (Table V on incomes and social welfare in annex) This may, of course, be
related to a feeling that things have got as bad as they can. There may also be a certain admixture of relief
that the rising prices of early 2008 seemed to be over and done with, as global fuel and food prices had
begun to come down. On the other hand, there was a reduction in the percentage who expect their cash 13
income to fall, from 19.1% to 14.2% in the Federation and from 14.42% to 8.89% in the Republika Srpska
Annual Report 2008

between November 2007 and 2008, with a smaller but still significant increase in the percentage who
expect household income to actually increase (Tables VI and VIII on incomes and social welfare in annex).
Again this is no doubt related to the fact that incomes have been rising, even if largely thanks to increased
government spending rather than increased real employment or productivity. As government budgets
come under increasing strain in 2009, this expectation is likely to look increasingly unrealistic. Finally, the
initial bite of the economic crisis may be seen in the reduction in the already small percentage who expect
to be able to save, as well as the increase in the percentage who think they might lose their job over the
coming three months (Tables IX and X on incomes and social welfare in annex).
Behind the relative complacency of the general population seems to be the increase in salaries,
pensions, and benefit payments, and so overall incomes, through the year, so that price inflation did not
have the impact it might have. The average salary in October 2008 was approximately 780 KM in both
entities, an increase of 24.68% on the average salary in the RS a year before, though just 12% in the
Federation (Table XIIIa). This increase in salaries is largely due to higher public-sector salaries and may
prove unsustainable even in the short term. The similar increase in pensions in both entities is already
proving difficult to finance.
There are therefore reasons for believing that 2009 may be marked by significant difficulties in social
security and social welfare, as government resources prove inadequate to meet increased demands upon
the system. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that steps were taken during 2008 to create a National
Social Inclusion Strategy, but there is still no clear indication as to when the strategy will be completed or
adopted. Moreover, the government has shown signs during 2008 of accepting the need for systematic
solutions to ensure a minimum standard of living and adequate social welfare and protection. The RS
government introduced regulations at the end of the year to increase the allocation for social welfare, but
the burden will be borne by the municipalities, who simply do not have the resources, particularly the
smaller municipalities. There is considerable ground for concern that the impact of the economic crisis may
be felt most by the worst off in 2009, as employment contracts, incomes fall, and government funds dry up.
In this respect it is worth stressing the findings of our social inclusion section which found significant
and consistent differences on the basis of our surveys between the ethnic minority and majority samples
on the various ethnic majority areas in terms of their reported income and economic self-assessment,
over and above the differences between the ethnic majority areas themselves. Perhaps the most concrete
example is the considerable gap between majority and minority samples when it comes to the possession
of consumer durables, like cars or mobile phones. This is compounded by the fact that rural households
are clearly worse off than urban ones, while female headed household are worse off than male headed
ones. These economic differences are compounded by major differences in the degree to which members
of the minority and majority samples in the various areas respond to political life and in particular the
extent to which they identify with their ethnic group and with the civic and political unit of which they
form a constituent part, namely Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nowhere is this clearer than between the
majority and the minority samples in the Serb majority areas. There are similar differences between the
ethnic majority and minority samples in terms of the approval ratings for the various levels of
government, the courts and the police, and the Office of the High Representative.
This picture is confirmed by our section on ethnic relations. The Ethnic Stability Index was relatively
high through the year, peaking during mid-year, but still ending 5 points up on the low of 72 for November
2007. As noted above, this is the only one of the indices to have maintained a generally positive
movement over the past 8 years, no doubt reflecting the gradual subsidence of ethnic passions caused by
the war. This was in spite of a year in which much of political life seemed to be designed primarily at
causing ethnic divisions and strife, from the reaction to the Kosovo declaration of independence, through
disagreement over the census, and the RS Prime Minister’s decision to withdraw from the state-level
electricity distribution company and similar grandstanding related to and following the local election
campaign. It is therefore encouraging that our sample was less likely to report harassment on ethnic
grounds during 2008 than it had been in 2007 (Table I on ethnic stability in annex). Unfortunately this
decrease relates primarily to Bosniak majority areas and there were in fact increases in Serb and Croat
majority areas, particularly with regard to the minority samples. There was a more general increase in
14 support for at least the idea of minority return, with a jump in support in both Bosniak and Serb majority
areas, but no in Croat ones (Table II on ethnic stability in annex).
Annual Report 2008
Less positively, when it comes to measures of social distance between the ethnic groups, we find that
Croats became less tolerant of Bosniaks and Serbs over the year, with considerably fewer finding it
entirely or generally acceptable to have Bosniak or Serb neighbours, see their children go to school
together, have a Bosniak or Serb boss, etc. Bosniaks were also more intolerant than before of Serbs and
Croats. By contrast, Serb acceptance of both Bosniaks and Croats was up in most of the areas asked about.
Even with these changes, however, Bosniaks are considerably the most tolerant, followed some way
behind by Croats, and with Serbs in third place. There was a similar pattern to willingness to move town
for a better job to an area where one would not belong to the majority ethnicity, with both Bosniaks and
Croats less willing than before to do so and Serbs expressing unchanged levels of readiness. Again, one
must take into account the fact that Serbs were in general the least willing (around 25%) to countenance
such a move in any case, followed by Croats (between 30% and 36%), with Bosniaks much the most willing
(around 40%) (Tables IV, V, and VI on ethnic stability in annex).
Pride in ethnicity declined over the year in all three ethnic majority areas, with regard to the majority
samples. The minority samples all registered higher levels of ethnic pride in November 2008 than they had
in November 2007. The percentages of all groups expressing pride in ethnicity were close to or above 80%.
This contrasts to the percentages expressing pride in being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which were
comparable only for Bosniaks, while for Croats and Serbs they were below 40% through the year. The
minority samples in both Serb and Croat majority areas expressed considerably higher levels of pride than
the majority samples, rising over the year to reach the mid-70s. The country clearly remains very divided
along ethnic lines, with Bosniaks, whether living as the local majority or a local minority, the only group
with a large percentage willing to express a strong degree of identification. By comparison, relatively few
Croats and even fewer Serbs harbour positive feelings about the country they live in. (Tables VIII and IX on
ethnic stability in annex) In spite of this, it is encouraging to note that there was a significant reduction
over the year in the percentages of most of our analytical categories who think that the withdrawal of
international forces from the country might lead to war – except people living in the Republika Srpska, who
were more like to think so at the end of the year than they had been at the beginning. It is worth noting
that they were in any case the least likely to think war might break out and the increase was minimal, so
that overall the change was clearly positive (Table X on ethnic stability in annex)
Finally coming to public safety, we note that the Security Stability Index rose steadily from its low in
March 2008 (85) to reach a reasonably high 88 by the end of the year, the same level as it had been in
November 2007. The reason for this change was public reaction in the early part of the year to a juvenile
killing in Sarajevo and other events which created major public concern over public safety. As the
authorities in Sarajevo took concerted action, including a curfew for juveniles and stronger punitive
measures related to parental responsibility, the public concern faded over the summer. This was reflected
the fact that the percentages of our sample reporting having been victims of a crime were not much
changed over the year, but there was a major increase in the percentages of the various samples
expressing dissatisfaction with police assistance received, particularly in Bosniak majority areas (Tables I
and III on public and personal safety in annex).
15
ANNUAL
Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

REPORT
2008
I POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

1. A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis
2. SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong international criticism
3. Public pessimism prevails
4. Support for European integration high
5. Support for the SNSD down
1. A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis

According to our Political Stability Index, 2008 was politically the least stable year since we started
our surveys in May 2000. During the second quarter of 2008, it fell to its lowest recorded level (48 points).
The average for the year is also the lowest yet, at 50.5. What is more, this means that for the second year
in a row the Political Stability Index was at a record low average value.1 In fact, as the above graph makes
clear, the trend for the Political Stability Index has been clearly downward since its peak of 57 points in
2001. There was a major drop of 5 points between 2003 and 2005, reflecting the very difficult political
period when Lord Ashdown was High Representative, the SDP-led Alliance lost power, and the restoration
of the politics of ethnic division produced deadlock in nearly every area of reform required by the
European Union for progress towards membership.
While there was a moderate recovery in 2006, political events during 2007 and 2008 have confirmed
the negative nature of the overall trend, particularly following the collapse of the initial constitutional
negotiations, the subsequent general elections, and the stand-off they produced between the
1 The average value of the Political Stability Index for 2007 was 52.7, the lowest value up till that point.
16 increasingly radical RS Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, and the increasingly undiplomatic BiH Presidency
Member Haris Silajdžić. 2008 proved a year of political instability and profound institutional crisis, in
which positive events were few and far between, while difficulties came thick and fast. The long-awaited
signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union came in the middle of
the year, but failed to energise political life or to produce any significant progress on the path towards
Europe. In fact, political life was overtaken by radical rhetoric, inability to agree on any political issue of
importance, and the obviously dysfunctional coalitions at both state and federal levels. It was also a year
of municipal elections, whose results provided no surprises and brought no major change to the balance
of forces. Finally, 2008 confirmed the country’s susceptibility to influences and events in neighbouring
countries, which only served to further complicate an already complicated political environment.
2. SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong

international criticism
This year, 2008, finally saw the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the
European Union, one of the few positive events of the year. After nearly 2 years of negotiations, the package
of legislation for police reform was passed by the state level parliament in April, under considerable pressure
from the international community. While Bosnia and Herzegovina signed its SAA as a result of compromise,
it was the last state in the region to do so. This event, certainly one of the most important of the year, was
nonetheless only the overture to a process which will require the country to pass a considerable amount of
legislation and to reach compromise on political and institutional issues of the highest significance.
Regardless of nearly unanimous declared support for the process of integration with Europe, there
was practically no further progress in this regard after the signing itself. Passage of the BiH Fiscal Council
Act and the National Strategy for War Crimes Prosecution was practically the only legislative activity in the
areas of reform which are a precondition to further progress. EU officials made clear that constitutional
reform, while not technically a condition, will be required for membership of the European Union. Given
the political cloud that hung over local political life almost the whole year, consensus on constitutional
change seemed more remote than ever before.
This was an election year. The holding of local elections on 5 October helped maintain the
polarisation of political life. Nationalist rhetoric was ramped up and divisions came increasingly to the
fore. Calls for secession were made increasingly freely from the Republika Srpska, while representatives
of Bosniak parties in the Federation called for the abolition of the entities, just as their colleagues from
the so-called Croat block were appealing for the creation of a third entity. The result of the local elections
brought no dramatic change. The SDA, SNSD, and the HDZ BiH fared best, while the relative losers were
the two junior partners in the coalition, the SBiH and the HDZ 1990.
Political crisis continued after the local elections. Radical rhetoric, inability to reach consensus on
important issues, and dysfunctional institutions remained characteristic of the domestic political scene
for the rest of the year. The coalition at state level had never functioned properly, but in 2008 differences
in opinion between the ruling parties took on more dramatic dimensions, not infrequently producing a
condition of continuous crisis in state level institutions. Particularly good examples are instances of
elected officials using official appearances abroad to present their own or their party’s views, rather than
those of the institutions they represent.2
Because of this constant political crisis, a number of different European institutions paid particular
attention to the country during the year. These European institutions were unanimous in stressing the
need for the adoption of a new or changes to the existing constitution to create functional state-level
structures. A meeting of the Peace Implementation Council (PIC) held in February agreed that if the Office
of the High Representative was to be transformed into an Office of a Special EU Representative certain
2 For examples, see the third-quarter report.

3 Five goals were set out: acceptable and sustainable solutions regarding the allocation of property between state and other levels of government,
acceptable and sustainable solutions to the issue of military property, full implementation of the final arbitration agreement on Brčko, fiscal
sustainability, and reinforcement of the rule of law. The two conditions were: signing the SAA and favourable assessment of the situation in the
country by the Steering Board, which would be based on thoroughgoing respect for the Dayton peace agreement. The text of the PIC’s declaration
is available at HTTP://www.ohr.int/pic/default.asp?content_id=41354
goals and conditions would have to be met in advance by the country.3 All attempts at unilateral change 17
to the constitutional structure of the country were also condemned, as were any attempts to question its

territorial integrity. This position regarding the status of the Office of the High Representative was
repeated at a meeting of the PIC held in June, and again in November. It should be stressed that, contrary
to expectations, the High Representative’s own approach to local leaders and political circumstances
remained relatively passive. Negative trends and even quite extreme displays by politicians received little
more than a warning, with no use of concrete measures or the Bonn authorities.
In September, the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly passed a Resolution on Bosnia and
Herzegovina criticising the country for failing to meet its admission requirements and calling upon it to
change the discriminatory provisions in its Constitution, while condemning any type of obstruction to the
work of the state level institutions or undermining the integrity of the state. The European Parliament also
passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina in October, stating that there was no place in the
European Union for Bosnia and Herzegovina as the country exists today – radicalised, divided, and
without political consensus over the path towards Europe. In early November, the European Commission
adopted a Progress Report on Bosnia and Herzegovina in which it made clear its view that there had been
at best partial progress over the political criteria and that most of that had been in the first half of the
year, while the lack of consensus over capacity building at state level, undermining of the Dayton peace
agreement, and inflammatory rhetoric had detracted from any progress previously made. At the end of
November, the European Union foreign and defence ministers discussed Bosnia and Herzegovina at one
of their regular meetings and announced their intention of strengthening EU involvement in the country,
which has yet to materialise.
Certain events in the region also affected the political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the most
important being the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo on 17 February. It should be noted
that the mere expectation of this event had had a negative impact through 2007. Constant attempts by
politicians from the RS to link the status of Kosovo with the status of their entity raised the political
temperature even before the declaration of independence, so the reaction following the event itself was
much as expected. The negative statements by RS politicians, the visit by the RS Prime Minister to attend
public demonstrations in Belgrade, demonstrations held in the main towns of the RS, and even the voting
of a resolution by the RS National Assembly refusing to recognise the unilateral declaration of
independence by Kosovo and Metohija offered little to surprise and brought little change to the political
climate.
Events related to the Hague Tribunal, both directly and indirectly, also affected the political scene in
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Positive events included the arrest of Stojan Župljanin in June and that of
Radovan Karadžić in July, though the latter’s trial has yet to start and will certainly represent one of the
most important political events of the coming period. Political life was also shaken by the sentencing of
former Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Army General Rasim Delić, who was found guilty on grounds
of command responsibility and sentenced to 3 years in prison for war crimes committed in central Bosnia.
As expected, the sentence provoked an extremely negative reaction in the RS, because of the leniency of
the term imposed, which led to accusations of bias on the part of the court.
At the end of the year, the leaders of the three leading ethnic parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina made
an attempt to reach agreement over the most important political issues, with a view to avoiding or
overcoming the long-term crisis. The leaders of the SDA, SNSD, and the HDZ BiH reached agreement in
principle on constitutional reform, the status of Brčko district, and the status of national property, under
the so-called Prud agreement.4 The Prud agreement received a very warm welcome from representatives
of the international community and the European Union, but was not particularly warmly received by
other local political players, whether in the ruling coalition or opposition. As a result, it remains extremely
uncertain whether implementation of the agreement will be at all possible, and to what extent it really
represents the first step out of the current crisis.
4 The agreement provides for the following: ammendments to the constitution to bring it into line with European norms, while improving the
effectiveness of state-level institutions and making clear territorial organization; a census in 2011, with the proviso that the 1991 census will remain
the basis for ethnic representation at all levels of government and administration until 2014; a deal on the division of government property, with
the state-level retaining ownership of such property as is necessary for state-level institutions to function and the remainder split between the entity
and lower levels of government; a deal to sort out the legal status of Brčko District by constitutional amendment.
18
3. Public pessimism prevails
The very pessimistic public mood already evident in 2007 continued through 2008. Already at the
beginning of the year, the sample showed considerable pessimism regarding the political situation in the
country, with as many as 78.8% of the Bosniak sample, 57.7% of the Croat sample, and 57.3% of the Serb
sample taking the view that Bosnia and Herzegovina was moving in the wrong direction. Over the
following two quarters, Serb and Bosniak opinion softened, only to harden again by the end of the year.
In the final quarter, 50.3% of the Serb sample, 52.9% of the Croat sample, and as much as 79.7% of the
Bosniak sample said they thought the country was headed in the wrong direction politically. On average,
more than half the total sample expressed pessimism throughout the year, with the Bosniak sample most
pessimistic, and the Serb sample least so (Tables I and II in annex).
The Bosniak sample was also most negative during the year vis-à-vis the economic situation, with as
much as 60% of the opinion through the year that the economic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was
bad, and a negligible number of the view that the economic situation could be described as good
(between 1.4% at the beginning and 0.2% at the end of the year). The Croat sample were far less likely to
express a negative assessment of the economic situation in the country, but this was largely because a
large majority of the sample through the year (more than 47%) refused to express a clear opinion on the
issue. The Serb sample also showed a very high and steady level of pessimism regarding the economic
situation, which varied over the year between 61.4% and 17.9% (Table III in annex). The sample from the
RS were also critical regarding the economic situation in that entity, with between 53.8% and 61.4% also
describing the economic situation there as poor (Table IIIa in annex).
The percentage of the sample who would emigrate if the opportunity arose was also high through
2008, at between 38.2% and 42.2% of the total sample, yet another negative trend continued from the
previous year. As has become the norm, the 18 to 35 age group was most eager to emigrate, with more
Table IV
Would emigrate if they could
Age Gender
All 18 - 35 36 - 50 51 + Male Female
2008 March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov
Yes 42.2 38.2 41.6 40.4 64.7 61.3 64.5 63.3 51.1 46.1 45.6 39.4 18.6 14.9 17.4 17.6 42.5 37.2 43.4 43.3 41.9 39.2 39.9 37.6
No 47.5 50.3 47.9 46.3 23.6 27.7 24.3 19.2 35.9 39.7 41.6 48.9 73.7 76.3 73.9 72.2 45.8 49.7 46.3 45.9 49.1 51.0 49.3 46.7
DK/NA 10.3 11.4 10.6 13.3 11.7 11.0 11.2 17.5 13.0 14.3 12.7 11.7 7.7 8.8 8.7 10.2 11.7 13.1 10.3 10.8 9.0 9.9 10.8 15.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research
than 60% expressing such a desire through the year (Table IV). The breakdown by ethnicity was fairly
stable through the year (Table V in annex).
4. Support for European integration high

Support for the process of European integration was high through the year, higher even than it had
been in 2007. That means between 75.6% and 79.9% of the total sample said they supported the process
through the year. The Bosniak sample was most likely to support or express approval (between 87.9% and
94%), but support was also relatively high amongst both the other samples as well -- around 65% and
78.3% for the Croat sample and between 56.9% and 67.1% for the Serb sample. There was, however, a
noteworthy drop in support amongst the Serb sample over the year, ending the year 10 points down on
the first quarter (Table VIII in annex).
The view that becoming a member of the European Union is of particular importance to the political
stability of the country also enjoyed considerable public support during the year, with between 77.2% and
80.3% of the total sample supporting it: more than 87% of the Bosniak sample, 66% of the Croat sample,
and 60% of the Serb sample through the year. As with the previous question, there was a gradual decline
Table VII 19
How important do you think EU membership is for BiH?

All Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas
2008 March June Sept Nov. March June Sept Nov. March June Sept Nov. March June Sept Nov.
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Very 57.8 52.6 45.2 48.8 80.6 77.9 60.9 73.9 45.5 43.8 51.5 36.4 35.0 25.9 26.5 21.7
Somewhat 22.5 26.4 32.0 28.4 11.7 9.5 28.1 15.2 21.3 32.9 22.7 43.9 35.2 43.5 37.8 39.0
Neither important
nor unimportant 11.1 11.4 13.8 12.9 3.6 3.6 7.6 6.7 19.1 16.2 20.9 14.6 17.4 19.3 18.9 20.5
Fairly unimportant 2.2 1.6 1.1 2.4 0.1 0.2 4.8 1.9 0.7 0.5 3.8 3.0 2.6 5.9
Not at all important 2.5 2.5 3.9 3.9 0.4 0.4 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 5.1 5.9 9.3 9.1
DK/NA 4.0 5.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 8.7 3.5 3.8 7.4 3.8 3.0 3.5 3.6 2.5 4.9 3.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL IMPORTANT 80.3 79.0 77.3 77.2 92.3 87.4 88.9 89.1 66.7 76.7 74.2 80.3 70.2 69.3 64.4 60.7
Neither important
nor unimportant 11.1 11.4 13.8 12.9 3.6 3.6 7.6 6.7 19.1 16.2 20.9 14.6 17.4 19.3 18.9 20.5
TOTAL UNIMPORTANT 4.6 4.1 5.0 6.2 0.5 0.2 0.4 6.9 3.3 1.9 1.6 8.9 8.9 11.9 15.0
DK/NA 4.0 5.4 3.9 3.6 3.6 8.7 3.5 3.8 7.4 3.8 3.0 3.5 3.6 2.5 4.9 3.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
in support amongst the Serb sample over the year, with an approximate 10 point difference between the
first and the last quarter (Table VII).
On the other hand, however, as the year wore on, the percentage of the sample viewed the process
of integration with Europe from the perspective of hope reduced, while the number who expressed
concern increased. During the first quarter as many as 73% of the total sample said they viewed the
process with hope, down to 63.9% by the last quarter. The trends for the Serb and Bosniak samples are
similar. The percentage of the Serb sample viewing the process with hope declined from 62.1% in the first
quarter to 49.3% in the last quarter. The percentage of the Bosniak sample of the same opinion was much
higher, but also in decline (from 85.8% at the beginning of the year to 75% by the end). Amongst the Croat
sample, the percentage who took this position was more stable and averaged approximately 65% across
the year (Table VI in annex).
5. Support for the SNSD down

In 2007, the SNSD was by far the strongest party both in the RS and at state level. In 2008, the party’s
dominant position was gradually eroded, as its support within its primary constituency, the RS, fell away.
In the first quarter of the year, RS support for the party was at an enviable 45.1%. This had clearly fallen
already in the second and third quarters, to 32.7% and 35.3% respectively, to end the year at just 23.9%.
This decline also meant losing its position as the most popular party in the country – from 17.9% of the
total sample in the first quarter, it fell to 9.7% by the end of the year. At the same time, there was no
concomitant increase in support for any other party in the RS, just a considerable increase in the
percentage of the sample who declared that no party represented a position which they considered close
to their own as well as in the percentage who refused to declare at all. The next party, in terms of
popularity, in the RS was the SDS, whose support fluctuated between 8.2% and 13% (Table IX in annex).
Regardless of the steady fall in support for the SNSD, no other party experienced a particularly steep
rise in approval during 2008. Over the year, the party which enjoyed most support in the Federation was
generally the SDP. This party's position remained between 12.4% and 17.2% over the year, the latter figure
being for the final quarter and the party’s strongest result during the year, when it became the leading
party in the country (10.7% of the overall sample). SDA support averaged approximately 12%, while
support for the SBiH averaged 7%. The Croat party with the most support was the HDZ BiH (averaging 7%),
considerably ahead of any other party from the so-called Croat block (Table IX in annex).
Both the Serb and Bosniak samples displayed increasingly critical attitudes towards the parties in
power. The traditionally critical Bosniak sample displayed even greater dissatisfaction, with more than
20 half of the opinion that the parties in power had not been even relatively successful in defining and
implementing key reforms, that they were not capable of meeting the conditions required for progress
towards integration with Europe on time, and that they did not deserve to stay in power. The Croat
sample was less stable in its opinion over the year, with between 25 and 40% expressing negative
assessment of the parties in power (except during the second quarter when a considerably higher
percentage took a critical view). Nonetheless, we should mention that this represents a lower level of
criticism than the previous year, largely due to the increased percentage of the sample unable or unwilling
to express an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the ruling coalition, rather than an increase in the
percentage expressing actual approval (Table XI in annex).
The Serb sample also displayed a more critical attitude than the previous year, though they remain
the most positive overall with regard to the parties in power. Between 20 and 30% gave a critical
assessment of the parties in power, while approximately 30% of the sample refused to answer through
the year. This leaves between 28.5% and 36.3% of the opinion that the parties in power deserve to remain
in power (Table XI in annex).
21
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
II INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BiH

1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive political crisis
2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government institutions
3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines
1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive

political crisis
The institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina have always been faithful mirrors of any crisis present in
local politics, so that their (inability to) function is a good indicator of political stability in the country. This
was the case in 2008 -- profound crisis in political life was accompanied by equally profound institutional
crisis. Problems in the performance of the ruling coalition at state level, evident from the very beginning
of its mandate, deepened through the year. Profound political disagreements between the parties making
up the ruling coalition were reflected, as expected, in the performance of the state level institutions.
More than ever before, these state institutions were a vision of ineffectiveness, inefficiency, party conflict,
and the pursuit of party and not common interests.
After the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union, Bosnia
and Herzegovina accepted a series of conditions related to membership, which will require not merely
highly intensive legislative activity and involvement of institutions at all levels, but also a high degree of
consensus between all political players regarding the path towards Europe. Unfortunately, since the
signing of the agreement, it has become clear that there is little if any commitment to and no practical
consensus regarding meeting the obligations and priorities set by the EU. It is a demoralising indicator
that only 13 of the over 30 short-term priorities put before the country by the European Union had been
met by the end of September this year, whether in whole or in part, so that it is impossible to talk of a
comprehensive reform process this year.
Instead of dealing with reforms and carrying out the tasks required for integration with Europe, the
state level institutions were preoccupied throughout 2008 with themselves. The decision-making process
in the collective state level institutions was marred by outvoting and the absence of consensus. Already
at the beginning of the year, two decisions by the collegiate head of state, the Presidency of Bosnia and
Herzegovina were found to be in violation of vital national/ethnic interests. This body’s inability to reach
compromise was confirmed after the Presidency failed to adopt a platform during the second quarter of
the year for participation in the UN General Assembly, so that the Chair of the Presidency, Haris Silajdžić,
gave a speech which was a reflection of his personal views. His speech to the Parliamentary assembly of
the Council of Europe was a similar case in point. This certainly contributed to the deterioration of the
political climate, provoking the predictably negative reaction from politicians in the RS.
22 On the other hand, a number of appearances by the RS Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, and other
politicians from the RS, during which they questioned the territorial integrity of the country and the authorities
Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH
pooled by the entities at state level, also had a particularly negative impact on political stability and the
functioning of state level institutions. The RS institutions went even further than mere verbal grandstanding. In
early September, the RS government initiated the process of creating its own electricity transmission company
(parallel to the state company responsible for this area), after which it refused to deliver documentation to the
Bosnia and Herzegovina Prosecutor's Office relating to the tax declarations of two private companies, the RS
government and certain ministries, while during the year it proceeded to open its own representative offices
abroad. These activities continued in the face of occasional warnings by representatives of the international
community and reaction by representatives of political parties based in the Federation.
Coming to the performance of the entity institutions, the SNSD maintained its dominant position
within the RS government through 2008, and while there was some quarrelling with the junior coalition
partners, principally the PDP, this did not affect the performance of institutions within the entity. The
federal institutions, on the other hand, staggered from crisis to crisis through the year, again largely as a
result of poor relations between the coalition partners at this level, particularly the SDA and the SBiH.
After publication of the local election results, the SDA and HDZ BiH opened negotiations on restructuring
the government, and there were even hints about the possible dissolution of the coalition between the
SDA and the SBiH. Once the SDP made clear, however, that it had no intention of joining the ruling
coalition, it became obvious that a new majority could not be formed without the SBiH (and HDZ 1990),
so that all talk of restructuring was in the end abandoned. A clear indicator of the crisis within the federal
institutions is the fact that the federal budget for next year is 240 million KM less than this year's budget
as a direct result of this year’s deficit. That the Federation is on the edge of bankruptcy was announced
more than once during the year by the Minister of Finance of the Federation.
Under such conditions of political and institutional crisis, rather greater involvement was expected
from the international institutions, led by the Office of the High Representative. The energetic approach
taken by the new High Representative, Miroslav Lajčak, in 2007, which suggested he might take an active
role in political process, underwent a transformation in 2008. His passivity, his reluctance to use his Bonn
authorities, and his self-imposed restriction to verbal warning made clear that there is no consensus on a
definite and determined course of action within the European Union or amongst the countries that make
up the Peace Implementation Council. Several times during the year, the High Representative himself,
alongside representatives of the EU institutions, stressed that the responsibility for progress towards
integration with Europe lies exclusively with domestic institutions and local political actors. Nor did local
politicians show a united front with regard to the role of the Office of the High Representative. While
politicians from the Federation (particularly those from the so-called Bosniak parties) advocated a greater
and clearer role for the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, those from the RS were
unanimous in their view that the Office of the High Representative should be closed. The decision of the
international community was somewhere in between -- at the end of the year, the Peace Implementation
Council decided that the time had not yet come to close the Office of the High Representative or to
withdraw the European security forces (EUFOR). On the other hand, it was also clear that any more
significant involvement than that currently in place was not to be expected any time soon.
2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government

institutions
The overall approval ratings for various government institutions in 2008 were as follows: around 40%
for state level institutions, 38% for federal institutions, 39% for RS institutions, and around 51% for
municipal level. There was not much fluctuation in the approval ratings during the year -- after a modest
fall in the second and third quarters, the institutional approval ratings generally recovered to the level of
the beginning of the year (Table I in annex). There remain, however, significant differences between the
various ethnic groups.
The Serb sample showed most confidence in all levels of government over the year, with a noticeable
dip in the third quarter. On average, some 50% of this group expressed support for state level institutions,
65% for municipal institutions, and as much as 68% for RS institutions. A relatively high percentage even
expressed support or approval for the work of the federal institutions -- around 48%. The Croat sample 23
started the year with a fairly high percentage expressing confidence in the various levels of government

and their performance, but there was a significant decline in the second quarter and the low-level was
maintained pretty well to the end of the year. The average for the year was around 36% support for the
performance of the state level institutions, 35% for the federal level institutions, 40% for the municipal
authorities, and around 22% expressing satisfaction with how the RS institutions were doing their job.
The Bosniak sample was the most critical group in 2008, though here too there was a moderate
improvement in the second half of the year. On average they gave the state level institutions an approval
rating of around 29%, federal level around 28%, RS institutions around 16%, with only the municipal level
doing significantly better, at around 39% (Table II in annex).
The overall approval rating for international institutions present in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a little
higher than the approval rating for government institutions and there was very little between the institutions
in question. Overall support (annual average) ranged from approximately 38% for the USA to 46% for UNDP
(Table I in annex). There was also less difference between the various ethnic groups in this regard.
Table V
How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for
personal gain, is in the following institutions
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas

March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
% % % % % % % % % % % %
FBiH Parliament
Not at all 0.6 2.3 2.7 0.9 2.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 3.9 1.7 0.6 0.4
A little 8.0 7.0 11.1 7.8 18.3 11.0 15.7 12.2 20.5 17.4 28.4 18.3
Moderately 8.1 11.0 11.0 10.7 26.4 19.1 27.3 19.9 12.5 11.5 16.7 16.5
Fairly 25.6 16.7 17.4 21.1 26.4 47.3 28.4 33.5 29.3 24.8 22.3 29.8
Very 57.7 63.0 57.8 59.5 26.1 21.2 27.3 33.7 33.8 44.6 31.9 35.0
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
FBiH Government
Not at all 0.6 2.0 2.5 0.9 2.5 2.1 1.4 1.2 4.9 1.9 0.6 0.7
A little 8.6 7.3 9.1 7.5 16.5 8.6 14.5 10.8 20.0 16.7 27.5 17.3
Moderately 7.9 10.2 11.3 11.1 26.9 19.1 28.0 22.3 12.3 12.0 17.3 17.4
Fairly 25.5 16.4 16.4 19.6 26.4 47.9 30.2 32.5 29.6 24.5 21.6 29.6
Very 57.4 64.1 60.8 60.9 27.7 22.3 25.9 33.2 33.2 44.9 33.0 35.0
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
RS National Assembly
Not at all 0.6 2.5 2.3 0.5 2.4 1.0 1.4 0.8 5.7 2.3 3.0 2.2
A little 5.5 5.7 5.1 6.6 13.7 5.9 14.2 6.3 22.7 17.9 30.3 19.3
Moderately 6.7 9.9 11.6 9.9 24.5 17.5 21.8 16.5 14.5 14.2 14.9 17.5
Fairly 23.2 15.4 18.0 18.4 25.1 50.1 31.3 34.9 28.7 25.0 20.6 31.3
Very 64.1 66.5 63.0 64.6 34.3 25.6 31.4 41.5 28.4 40.6 31.3 29.7
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
RS Government
Not at all 0.6 2.5 1.9 0.5 2.3 0.5 1.4 0.8 5.5 2.9 3.3 1.5
A little 5.0 5.8 5.1 7.2 12.3 5.3 13.7 6.8 22.3 17.9 29.5 20.2
Moderately 6.5 9.6 9.1 9.6 24.3 20.7 23.9 15.1 16.1 13.2 13.7 16.8
Fairly 23.2 15.2 19.1 18.6 26.5 48.7 29.6 34.3 29.2 24.7 21.1 32.0
Very 64.6 66.9 64.8 64.1 34.6 24.8 31.4 43.0 26.9 41.3 32.5 29.5
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
Municipal authorities
Not at all 0.6 2.4 3.5 1.0 2.8 0.8 2.2 0.4 3.3 1.8 2.3 1.8
A little 8.8 7.1 8.9 10.6 12.3 12.1 14.1 8.6 20.2 16.0 23.9 19.7
Moderately 13.3 11.6 13.3 16.4 29.0 26.4 23.5 21.8 19.0 16.9 17.6 16.6
Fairly 23.2 16.5 17.6 21.4 27.1 37.8 29.0 36.1 27.7 22.2 25.0 30.5
Very 54.1 62.5 56.7 50.6 28.7 22.8 31.1 33.1 29.8 43.1 31.2 31.4
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
24 In contrast to the low-level of support they expressed for domestic institutions, the Bosniak sample
showed a higher level of approval for the international institutions than the other two ethnic groups.
There was a significant drop in support only in the second quarter, with support relatively high level in all
other quarters. Taking the annual average, some 42% of this group expressed support for the US, with
50% expressing support or approval for the Office of the High Representative. There was a significant
decline in the Croat sample support for international institutions during the third quarter, which did not
recover in the fourth. Nonetheless, the average annual value was somewhere between 40% and 43%
depending on which international institution was in question. The Serb Sample recorded a relatively
steady approval rating for international institutions through the year, albeit one which was somewhat
lower than either of the other two ethnic samples. As has become traditional, this group expressed least
support for the work of the United States (annual average around 30%), and most for the OSCE and UNDP
(annual average of around 41%). See Table II in annex for more details.
Next comes the issue of corruption in government institutions, which our sample was very inclined
to believe was widespread through the year. On average approximately 43% of the sample in 2008 was
of the opinion that corruption is very widespread in government or state level institutions, 45% that it is
very widespread in federal level institutions, and around 46% that it is very common in RS institutions
(Table IV in annex). Once again, the Bosniak sample was considerably the most critical, with more than
50% generally of the opinion that corruption is widespread in state level institutions, more than 60%
saying it is common in federal institutions, and around 64% alleging it of RS institutions. The members of
the other two ethnic groups were considerably less critical, with an average of 26% of Croats and 37% of
Serbs taking the view that corruption is very widespread in state level institutions. It is interesting to note
that in spite of the very high approval ratings given to the RS institutions by the Serb sample, on average
32% still considered corruption to be very widespread in them (Table V in annex).
3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines

In 2008, an average of 44% of the overall sample expressed support for the job being done by the
Office of the High Representative (Table I in annex). There continue to be clear differences between the
ethnic groups in their opinions and attitudes, but they are not as marked as they were in previous years.
As usual, the Bosniak sample was the most supportive -- except for during the second quarter, when there
was a significant dip in support - with more than half of this group generally expressing approval of the
job being done by the Office of the High Representative, so that the annual average was 51%. Next was
the Croat sample. The percentage of this group who expressed approval of the OHR fell significantly in the
second quarter (down approximately 15 points) and remained at that level to the end of the year.
Nonetheless, the average for this group was approximately 40%. The Serb group is the least supportive
of the three, averaging approximately 35%. There was little change in the level of support expressed by
this group through the year (Table II in annex).
When we look at the sample’s views regarding the various OHR-led reform measures, we find
declining confidence in public administration reform (average for the year around 42%), followed by
political reforms (41%), economic reforms (around 39%), and anticorruption measures (around 36%)
(Table VI in annex). There was a clear reduction in confidence regarding all areas of reform through the
year.
Support for the measures being taken by the High Representative is still highest amongst Bosniaks,
though even their support declined significantly during the first and third quarters, with a moderate
recovery at the end of the year. The Bosniak approval rating for political reform averaged around 56%,
around 50% for economic performance, 46% for anti-corruption reforms, and 54% for public
administration reforms. Serb and Croat ratings were considerably lower and their views were very
consistent. Here too we saw a gradual decline in support over the year, so that it was considerably lower
in the last quarter than it had been in the first. On average, some 36% of the Croat sample expressed
support for political reforms, 34% for economic reforms, 28% for anticorruption measures, and 32% for
public administration reforms. Around 26% of the Serb sample expressed support for political reforms on
average, while 28% were in favour of the economic and anticorruption measures, and approximately 34%
expressed support for public administration reforms (Table VII in annex).
Table IX 25
In your view, should the High Representative’s powers be reduced, increased or stay the same?

% % % % % % % % % % % %
Reduced 13.9 23.3 22.6 10.9 29.0 40.2 42.2 28.9 71.2 69.9 69.9 71.6
Increased 49.2 25.9 33.1 41.9 32.6 15.5 16.2 18.9 4.3 1.7 2.8 2.9
Stay the same 24.2 33.8 29.7 40.0 22.7 39.8 36.1 31.9 18.3 23.5 20.0 19.1
DK/NA 12.7 17.0 14.5 7.2 15.7 4.5 5.4 20.2 6.2 5.0 7.3 6.4
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
These three ethnic groups continue to show very different patterns of opinion regarding the powers
of the High Representative. On the one hand, the Serb sample’s views through the year were clear, with
a considerable majority (around 70%) in favour of reducing the High Representative's powers. The Croat
and Bosniak samples views were more labile over the year, with a majority of Croats tending to think that
the high Representative's powers should be reduced or stay as they are, while Bosniaks rather felt they
should be increased or stay as they are (Table IX).
27
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
III ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BiH

1. Industrial production up
2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem
3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of BiH reserves fall
4. Trade deficit at worrying level
5. The public see economy as doing poorly
6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and getting more so
We have been measuring economic stability using the index based on our opinion polls since these
reports began in 2000. Generally speaking, we may say that the index has not fluctuated much on a
quarterly basis, but we have noted steady deterioration quarter by quarter recently. To provide a clearer
picture of these trends, we have calculated annual averages of the index and a trend line for the past eight
years. The results are shown in the following graph.
The Economic Stability Index has clearly fluctuated considerably over recent years, when viewed at
the annual level, with the trend generally a negative one. Our trendline shows the index as having enjoyed
moderate growth between 2000 and 2003, but as falling after 2003 with increasing, if uneven
momentum, to reach its lowest level to date in 2008.
Given that worldwide economic activity has been experiencing a slowdown, particularly in late 2008,
it would seem that the index reflects fairly well what we have in fact been witnessing. Even though we are
talking here about the public's expectations, it is indicative that they have for five years tended to suggest
decreasing economic stability, with the lowest value last year. In other words, the public's economic
expectations seem to have provided a realistic foreshadowing of the economic instability we are currently
experiencing.
28 1. Industrial production up
Industrial production in Bosnia and Herzegovina grew in both entities during 2008, up 8% in the FBiH
Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH
and 17% in the RS compared to the year before. The very high jump in the RS during the final month of
the year is particularly striking, with levels of production practically double those of December 2007.
In the FBiH, the three highest growth branches
Table I Index of the physical volume of
of industry were the production of other vehicles,
industrial production in BiH
followed by chemicals and related products, and
medical, optical, and precision equipment and
timepieces.1 This is the same set and order as the VIII 2008 VIII 2008 I-VIII 2008
VIII 2007 VIII 2007 I-VIII 2007
quarter before. In the Republika Srpska, the three
FBiH 98.2 109.6 105.4
leading sectors were the production of coke and
RS 100.2 109.4 107.8
petroleum products, followed by other electrical Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research
machines and apparatus, and in third place motor
vehicles and trailers.2 As the values for these indices
(in the footnotes) suggest, certain of the sectors experienced growth of more than 100% compared to the
same period last year. The production of coke and petroleum products saw particularly high growth, with
an index of 675, so that production was more than six times the level in 2007.
For the sake of comparison, we may note that in 2007 industrial production rose most with regard to
the production of office machinery and computers, followed by motorized vehicles and trailers, and semi-
trailers, and metal products other than machinery and equipment.3 In 2006, the most sucessful sectors were
different, with the production of medical, precision, and optical equipment and timepieces in first place,
followed by the extraction of metal ore, and in third place the production of chemicals and related products.4
According to these results, two sectors saw particularly high levels of growth over the past three years,
namely: chemicals and related products and medical, precision, and optical instruments and timepieces.
Industrial production in the RS rose most with regard to the following three sectors: the production of
furniture and similar products, the production of mass consumer products, and recycling.5 In 2006, the three
leading sectors in the RS were: wood and cork processing and products, the extraction of stone and dark
coal, brown coal, lignite, and peat, and the production of rubber and plastic products.6 It is clear that the
structure of the leading sectors in the RS has varied considerably from year to year over the past three years.
The sectors in the Republika Srpska whose indices fell most in 2008 were the production of office
equipment and computers, followed by furniture, and in third place the extraction of other ores and stones.7
The sectors with the lowest indices, however, were the production of radio, TV, and communications
equipment, recycling, the production of office and computer equipment, and the production of metal
products other than machinery.8 There is one sector which has appeared for three years in a row in this list,
namely the production of radio, TV, and communications equipment, suggesting that this branch of industry
has been going through particularly difficult times. On the other hand, both entities saw the production of
office and computer machinery decline, suggesting that this sector clearly had a rough ride in 2008 when it
comes to the prospects for continued growth. It is worth noting that in 2007 this was one of the most
successful sectors in the FBiH, but one of the worst performing in 2008, at least relative to the year before.
2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem

The high unemployment rate in Bosnia and Herzegovina is certainly one of the country's main
macroeconomic headaches. The increase in registered unemployment in past years has recently been halted
1 Index values, respectively: 180.1; 151.4; 119.9. Source: Federal Statistics Office, “Mjesečni statistički pregled,” no. 1, January 2009.
2 Index values, respectively: 674.8; 216.1; 143.3. Source: RS Statistics Office, “Saopštenje statistike industrije – Decembar 2008. godine”, no. 8/09,
January 2009.
3 Index values, respectively: 164.9; 155.3; 153.8. Source: Federal Statistics Office, December 2007
4 Index values, respectively: 143.6; 132.5 and 129.7. Source: Federal Statistics Office, Mjesečni pregled FBiH 1/07, January 2007
5 Source: RS Statistics Office, Sopštenje statistike industrije, December 2007
6 Source: RS Statistics Office, Sopštenje statistike industrije, January 2007
7 Source: Federal Statistics Office, Mjesečni statistički pregled, no 1, January 2009.
8 Source: RS Statistics Office, Saopštenje statistike industrije - Decembar 2008. godine, no 8/09, January 2009
Table II 29
Total number of registered unemployed by entity

Jan-05 Jan-06 Mar-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jun-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 Mar-08 Aug-08 Women
FBiH 328,225 349,137 351,867 367,449 371,156 370,961 370,410 369,886 371,342 367,449 357,281 340809 173.837
REPUBLIKA SRPSKA 144,823 142,754 145,331 146,180 146,517 144,306 140,189 136,520 134,197 136,108 138,497 133,827 64.069
BiH 473,048 491,891 497,198 513,629 517,673 515,267 510,599 506,406 505,539 503,557 495,778 474636 237.906
and the number of the unemployed has even fallen slightly. These are, however, modest steps, as more than
half a million people remain unemployed, which is a very high number for such a small economy. The
following table presents data on unemployment as registered by the employment bureaux.
We note that in late 2008 (November) some 480,000 people were registered as unemployed, down
some 40,000 on 2007. Gender analysis shows that women are moderately more at risk than men, with 51%
of the unemployed being women and 49% men. When it comes to educational level, we find that the
unemployed are most likely to be skilled or highly skilled (171,813) or unskilled workers (161,463), who make
up 70% of the total. They are least likely to be university graduates, who make up just 11,771 or 2.5% of the
total, while post-graduates make up just 1.5 %.
3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of

BiH reserves fall
After the introduction of VAT in 2006, there was Table I
a major rise in retail prices, with the retail price Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices
indices up 7% in the FBiH and 8.4% in the RS. In 2007,
prices were more stable, with an increase of around VIII 2008 VIII 2008 I- VIII 2008
2% in both entities. 2008 saw considerable prices VII 2008 VIII 2007 I- VIII 2007
FBiH 98.2 109.6 105.4
rises again, however, averaging a little above 7%,
RS 100.2 109.4 107.8
close to the level of inflation in 2006. There was no Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research
major difference between the entities.
The main areas generating higher prices and living costs were food and non-alcoholic beverages (up
12.1%), followed by accommodation, water, electricity, gas and other fuels (up 8.6%), and third restaurants
and hotels (up 7.1%). Retail prices only fell for clothing and shoes, down 2.1%.
Central Bank of BiH reserves have been growing steadily for some time, including most of the months
of 2008. The fourth quarter did see a negative turn, with a reduction in the reserves, as Graph 3 shows.
The upward trend of last year came to an end in
Graph 1 Central Bank of BiH Foreign Reserves October 2008. In October and November 2008 the
(millions KM) Bank's total reserves fell by some 500 million KM. The
last month of 2008 saw a moderate recovery, which
is of course a good sign, and the trend may well
continue into 2009. In any case, the reason for this
drop in late 2008 is not hard to surmise, as the global
financial crisis resulted in the withdrawal of deposits
from the banking system, reducing reserves. It
should be noted, however, that this is likely to be a
short-term adjustment and that reserves are still at
the same level they were in July 2008, so there is no
reason for panic. It is possible that they will fall
further, but we do not expect a major decline or
anything that would threaten the continued
operation of the BiH Central Bank Currency Board
arrangement. In any case, the global financial crisis is
30 a reality, whose indirect impact is clear from the graph and was always going to be hard to avoid. We may
still hope that this negative phase in the cycle will pass during the coming year, though most predictions to
be heard from domestic and international experts suggest that it may last longer and even take on the
characteristics of a recession. We should keep in mind, therefore, that recessions do not affect developed
and transition countries in the same ways and it is to be hoped that the evident slowdown in economic
activity will have less of an impact on this country than on developed countries like the US and Great Britain.
4. Trade deficit at worrying level

The country’s trade deficit has in recent years been subject to negative trends, with a low export-import
ratio on the one hand and a steadily rising deficit on the other. It was reduced somewhat in 2006, when the
export-import ratio improved, primarily as a short term consequence of the introduction of VAT. In 2007,
however, the ratio fell again, though still better than in previous years. In 2008, there was a further deterioration
of the balance of trade, as BiH generated a more than 9.5 billion KM deficit and the export-import ratio fell to
41%, 3.5% down on 2007.9 The main reason is that imports grew faster than imports, up 17.2% and 13.1%
respectively, which naturally increases the deficit.
Table V
Between 2000 and 2008, BiH’s trade totalled 123 BiH Foreign Trade
billion KM. This speaks to the openness of the
economy. Unfortunately, exports over the period were IX 2008 I – IX 2008 I – IX 2008
worth just 32 billion KM, while imports were worth 90 I – IX 2007
billion KM. The total trade deficit since the war is 57 Exports 617 5.147 + 16,7 %
billion KM. While it is unreasonable to expect an Imports 1,476 12,337 + 22,3 %
Total volum 2,093 17,484 -
economy like BiH to enjoy balanced trade, such a high
Balance -859 -7,19 -
cumulative deficit is certainly problematic. It is
Ratio -
particularly concerning that so much of this deficit is 41.80% 41.70%
due to imports of goods for consumption rather than Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priopćenje statistike vanjske trgovine, no. 9,
production (e.g. agricultural inputs). Year IV, October 2008
While the long-term impact of imports required

for production may be positive, the import of consumer products has at best a short-term impact on
consumption. Overall, the average export-import ratio of 34 % over the past eight years is hardly
satisfactory and it is no wonder that the overall deficit is high enough to finance several Vc corridors
through Bosnia and Herzegovina.
As per usual, the country's main trading partners were Croatia, Germany, Serbia, Slovenia, and Italy. The
deficit was highest with Croatia, at around 1.7 billion KM for 2008. As a group, however, the EU countries
were the most important, with both imports and exports rising, up 17.7% and 8.9% respectively.10 Given the
additional liberalization and removal of customs on imports from the EU as of January 2009, imports from
the EU may be expected to increase even further, unless the condition of the global economy interferes with
established trends in the country's external sector.
5. The public see economy as doing poorly

More than half of our sample in all the surveys conducted during 2008 was of the opinion that there
had been no major changes in the condition of the economy over the previous year. Unfortunately, more
than a third of the sample described the economy as deteriorating, with a moderate improvement in the
third quarter. Answers in the final sector were amongst the worst, with the highest result for those saying
things had got worse and the lowest for those saying they were improving. In fact, the trend regarding this
question over the past number of quarters reveals that public opinion on this matter has become fairly
static, without major oscillations between quarters, but with a modest upward tendency. This positive trend
has now been halted. These results are not particularly surprising given concern over the potential scale of
the economic crisis galloping through large parts of the world economy, whose first (unofficial) negative
impact is just being felt on the BiH economy.
9 Source: Saopštenje – Statistika vanjske trgovine, BiH Statistics Agency, Year IV, no. 12, January 2009.
10 Source: Saopštenje – Statistika vanjske trgovine, BiH Statistics Agency, Year IV, no. 12, January 2009.
Graph 2 31
Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how?11

Looked at by entity, we find that during the second quarter of 2008, the RS sample were more
pessimistic, but in the other three it was the FBiH sample who were. At the end of 2008, some 37% of the
FBiH sample said the economic situation had deteriorated. The RS sample result was lower, but still high, at
32%.12 Looked at by ethnic majority area, we find that Bosniak majority areas were the most pessimistic
through the year, followed by Serb majority areas, with the best results generally in Croat majority areas.13
Graph 3
How do you expect your family finances to change over the next year?14
The public's economic expectations for the coming year do not give much better grounds for optimism.
As usual, most of the sample in all the surveys of 2008 said they expected no change in economic conditions.
The answers to the last quarterly survey were the worst in this regard. We assume that fear of the economic
crisis may have depressed the public’s expectations, as the percentage in our final poll of 2008 who said they
expect things to get worse economically speaking was particularly high (25%).
Overall, however, public opinion seems to be only moderately affected by nervousness over the
economic crisis, the hot topic of the day, which is, in the end, a good thing for the Bosnian and Herzegovinian
economy. It is a recognized phenomenon that public opinion is an important factor in the economy, as the
11 Source: Table VI in annex.

12 Source: Table VII in annex.
13 Source: Table VIII in annex.
14 Source: Table IX in annex.
32 less the degree of fear, the less consumption will Graph 4 Expect prices over the next six months
suffer, and falling consumption aggravates the to...I?15
situation. To put it in the terms of one of the best

known of economists, John Maynard Keynes, it is
important that BiH not fall into the “liquidity trap,”
where fear of crisis leads the populace and industry
to save money, reducing consumption and
investment, aggravating economic conditions in the
country. If our sample's responses are representative
of views in the country, then this should not happen,
at least to any very significant degree.
As the graph makes clear, a very high percentage
of the population in late 2007 and early 2008 were
worried that prices were going to rise. While this was
a matter of public perception, the picture does seem
to reflect what really happened, as in late 2007 and
early 2008 food and fuel prices rose sharply on world
markets, for fuel prices to fall steeply again in the second half of 2008. In any case, we note a reduction in
the second half of 2008 in the percentage of our sample predicting further price rises, though a majority still
do. We also note that there should be a reduction in the prices of EU imports, but we will be able to judge
this only after enough time has gone by after the implementation of the changes. Preliminary projections
for January 2009 suggest that the impact may be less than expected.
Table XI
Expect household income over the next six months to...?
Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Bosnia and Herzegovina % % % % % % % % %
Total fall 14.4 13.3 10.4 12.0 16.9 12.4 11.1 13.2 11.8
Total rise 18.3 21.5 22.0 23.8 17.9 21.4 18.5 22.8 20.9
No change 59.7 59.2 55.6 54.0 58.0 60.0 63.0 58.0 62.6
DK/NA 7.5 6.0 12.0 10.3 7.3 6.2 7.3 6.0 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
FBiH % % % % % % % % %
Total fall 14.4 15.5 11.0 11.7 19.0 11.1 8.5 13.4 14.2
Total rise 17.8 19.0 20.2 23.1 16.2 20.4 16.6 21.1 18.4
No change 60.2 58.0 52.9 50.2 56.6 61.1 66.7 58.7 62.8
DK/NA 7.6 7.5 15.9 15.0 8.2 7.4 8.2 6.8 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
REPUBLIKA SRPSKA Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Total fall 14.6 10.0 10.1 13.1 14.4 14.4 14.8 13.3 8.9
Total rise 19.8 25.7 25.2 24.9 20.5 23.2 22.2 26.5 25.6
No change 58.1 60.2 58.0 58.2 58.7 57.9 56.5 55.0 60.6
DK/NA 7.6 4.1 6.6 3.8 6.3 4.5 6.4 5.2 4.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
BRČKO Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Total fall 11.8 15.4 0.8 4.6 12.6 14.4 5.1 2.1
Total rise 5.6 11.9 13.0 22.5 13.9 16.1 3.1 0.5 8.6
No change 78.5 72.7 82.8 77.5 81.5 67.4 82.5 94.4 89.3
DK/NA 4.2 3.4 3.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
15 Source: Table X in annex.

16 Source: Table XII in annex.
We have seen that most of the sample said they expect prices to rise over the coming year. At the same 33
time, a large percentage (around 63%) said they do not expect their income to increase. Around 20% do

expect their income to improve, suggesting that any further increase in prices will be at the expense of living
standards for most people. While we are talking about expectations, this trend is nonetheless worrying,
particularly with regard to low income families.
Finally, given the above analysis, we should not be surprised to find that more than 80% in all our polls
during 2008 said that they would not be able to put aside any of their income as savings over the coming
year. The worst results were recorded in the final quarter of 2008.16 Such indicators only further confirm the
BiH economy's considerable dependence on foreign savings, which is hardly a good sign, particularly at a
time when foreign capital will be scarcer, largely as a consequence of the global financial crisis.
6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and

getting more so
The importance of institutions for the economic progress of a country under modern economic
conditions no longer appears in doubt. In addition to their importance for economic development, this is
also an interesting question with regard to BiH, because there has been considerable discussion recently on
institutional issues. There has been, consequently, sufficient reason for us to monitor issues related to the
institutional aspects of the BiH economy and society. As this is the economic section of the report, we are
most interested in the economic consequences of institutional costs and the quality and effectiveness of the
framework of local institutions.
Graph 5 Graph 6 Transaction costs associated with

Expect prices and income to rise in BiH17
government institutions in BiH18
According to our 2008 surveys, more than half the sample thinks the way in which government is
organized and carries out its functions costs ordinary people considerably more than it should, both in terms
of actual cash payments and of time spent in dealing with them. As with other answers, the fourth quarter
saw the worst results to date. We assume one reason for this is the reform of direct taxation in the FBiH, but
it may equally be the under par response to current economic problems, particularly given the global
financial crisis. In any case, 56% think that institutions in BiH cost more than they should in money terms,
while 57% said they require too much time. It is worth noting that the worst results were from the RS in the
first two quarters, but from the FBiH after that.18 In other words, a clear majority are of the view that BiH
institutions cost too much money and time. Even more starkly, they are expensive, time consuming, and of
questionable efficiency.
17 Source: Table XIII in annex.

18 Source: Table XIII in annex.
19 Source: Table XVI in annex.
34 If we rate the direct and indirect costs caused by institutions on a scale, our sample have clearly
indicated that their cost of living is considerably higher due to both direct costs in terms of payments to
institutions and indirect costs (e.g. time required for demanding procedures, inefficiency, poor
implementation of laws, etc). Taking an average of our samples’ estimates of these direct and indirect costs,
we find that their living costs were at least 10-30% higher as a result of direct payments to institutions and
a further 10-30% higher because of indirect costs caused by these institutions.20 In other words, these
responses suggest that the public are not at all happy with the quality and effectiveness of domestic
institutions, as, in addition to direct costs like taxes, they are faced with high indirect costs and institutional
failure, largely as a result of poor implementation in the field. We note that the answers were most
pessimistic in Bosniak and Croat majority areas in all the polls carried out during 2008. In other words, the
situation is worse in the Federation of BiH, which is hardly surprising given the complex administrative
structure of the entity, which is very costly, both directly and indirectly.
Given that the institutions of importance for economic growth and development can be more or less
efficient, we use our survey to monitor the public's views regarding certain basic institutions in BiH and how
they do their job. The best ranking institutions are the Central Bank of BiH, the Indirect Taxation Authority,
and the Courts. In all previous reports the Courts were very poorly ranked, so this result represents a major
turnaround. It is however largely due to the collapse in confidence in the entity Tax Administrations, which
had previously normally come third. On the other hand, the worst ranked institutions were the privatisation
agencies, the employment bureaux, and the Foreign Investment Promotion Agency.21 These results should
certainly give those institutions pause for thought, when it comes to assessment of their work. The results
of the survey are given in more detail in Table XIV in the annex to this report.
Finally, when formal government institutions fail to carryout their tasks effectively, it provides a motive
for the public and business to build so-called informal institutions in order to finish business which should
be the responsibility of government institutions. Informal institutions include the use of friendly, family, or
work connections in order to complete a task “more quickly” or “easily.” The results of the 2008 surveys
suggest that the public do use such informal institutions or a range of informal rules of behaviour but not
excessively.22
20 Source: Table XVII in annex.

21 Source: Table XIV in annex.
22 Source: Table XV in annex.
35
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
IV THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BiH

1. Economic situation worsens during 2008
2. Idle capacity in every second company
3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse
4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax burden hamper private sector operations
5. High direct and indirect costs of domestic institutions
1. Economic situation worsens during 2008

The results of our polls for 2008 were, in so far as they relate to the economic situation in the country,
not merely poor, but also showed signs of further deterioration towards the end of the year. The best
results, relatively speaking, were for the third quarter, while the worst were the final quarter. As the graph
shows, 70% of our sample of 150 leading managers characterise the economic situation in the country as
worse and only 4% describe it as better than last year. Some 28% said that there had been no change.
Given the global economic environment, with economic, financial, and credit crises worldwide, which has
begun to transfer to BiH, these results are approximately what was to be expected. All in all, the sample
response suggests that 2007 was a more successful year for the business sector in BiH than 2008.
Graph 1
Compared to a year ago, the economy is….(%)1
Business sector expectations regarding the economic situation over the first six months of 2009,
taken from our final survey of 2008, are hardly optimistic. In other words, a majority of the sample (62%)
1 Source: Table I in annex.

36 expect things to deteriorate over the coming six months, while 35% expect no change, and only 3% expect
things to improve.2 As above, these answers are not particularly surprising, given that the Bosnian
Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH
business sector has no doubt begun to “feel” the consequences of the global crisis, the results of which
remain to be seen. For the moment, we cannot claim unequivocally that the country is in recession or
how badly it will be affected.
2. Idle capacity in every second company

For some time we have been monitoring reported utilization of capacity by the business sector. As
this is an indicator which it is difficult to get at through the official statistics, but an important one of the
real condition of industry, the sample's responses regarding the degree to which existing capacity is being
put to use deserve particular attention. We have frequently stressed in the quarterly reports that the
degree to which existing capacity is being used indicates how far industry is from its production potential,
which is to say how great the gap is between the work to be done and the capacity available to do it.
Generally speaking, the answers are not heartening, as a large percentage of companies do have
unemployed capacity, nearly fifty percent in fact.
Graph 2
Exploitation of Industrial Capacity in BiH3
The fact that such a high percentage of the companies in the survey have idle capacity is not a problem
for those companies alone, but also indirectly a macroeconomic issue for the country. Our survey makes
clear the reason behind the underutilization of existing capacity, a reason that is certainly not hopeful for
BiH industry. Unfortunately, as we enter 2009 we are beginning to hear talk of trying to maintain existing
capacity utilization and employment levels, given the trend towards recession in the global economy. In
other words, the measure of success for the BiH economy would now be to navigate the negative phase of
the business cycle without major redundancies and further reductions in capacity use. The impact on the
BiH economy remains to be seen, but initial and unconfirmed data suggest that workers are being laid off
and capacity turned off. One can even hear commentary, for example in neighbouring Croatia, to the effect
that the situation is being “welcomed” by some employers as an opportunity to get rid of potentially
surplus or troublesome workers under cover of recession. Such behaviour can hardly be ruled out, though
there have been no reports of it in Bosnia and Herzegovina as yet.
3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse

BiH managers clearly think that the economy has been worse in 2008 than it was in 2007. As these are
business people, their views are clearly based in large part on how their companies are doing. In other
words, we should expect worsening financial data, which is what we have been getting through 2008.
While the first three quarterly reports of this year showed most companies reporting improving results, the
3 Source: Table III in annex.

actual percentage so reporting declined steadily Table IV 37
over the year. This has culminated in our fourth With regard to your company’s overall

operations, how would you characterize
quarter results, which show more companies
your financial status compared to the
reporting deterioration compared to the same time same period last year?
last year. To be precise, 29% of our sample said their
results were worse than last year, while 27% said Better The same Worse
they were better. (%) (%) (%)
Expectations for the first six months of 2009 Jun-05 23 43 34
Sep-05 20 49 31
show that business expects things to continue getting
Dec-05 31 39 29
worse, with 43% of companies projecting
Mar-06 19 43 38
deteriorating financial results. This is the first time Jun-06 35 34 28
since we began polling that our sample has been Sep-06 36 38 26
more negative in its projections than in its assessment Dec-06 38 36 26
of the preceding period. There has always been a Apr-07 43 36 21
modest optimism that the future will be better, until Sep-07 62 24 14
now. The answers to these two questions suggest that Dec-07 46 34 20
companies in BiH are in a worse position than a year Mar-08 50 32 17
Aug-08 35 41 24
ago and expect it to continue to deteriorate. The main
Sep-08 28 46 26
reason for this is of course the global crisis and its
Dec-08 27 44 29
impact on the BiH economy. There are no major Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research
differences between the entities.
In addition to the poorer financial results in 2008, our survey results suggest an increase in company debt
compared to a year ago. The increase is higher in the RS. This is a somewhat ambiguous indicator, however,
as an increase in debt may equally be a consequence of investment, as we have pointed out in previous
reports. Moreover, when considering increased debt, we should expect it to fall in the coming period, given
the rise in interest rates due to the crisis.
Table VI
How would you compare your company's level of debt to the same period last year?
Higher (%) The same (%) Less (%) N.A. (%)

IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08IX '08XII '08
BiH 28 23 39 26 23 34 37 46 35 34 46 47 42 35 25 31 25 27 20 24 28 1 11 1 1 10
FBiH 29 24 42 27 25 31 35 42 31 34 43 47 43 38 28 33 24 28 20 26 27 1 12 0 1 9
RS 22 19 29 24 17 41 42 62 48 35 52 48 41 33 17 23 29 24 21 18 25 0 10 6 14
And finally, poor financial results and higher debt levels than in 2007 may be behind the reduction in the
number of companies reporting a profit. The percentage declined through 2008, so that in the December poll,
69% said they had made of profit and 31% said they had made a loss.5 In 2007, around 80% of the sample
regularly reported operating at a profit.
4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax

burden hamper private sector operations
Our sample's responses when asked to what degree the various levels of government help business to
overcome obstacles have been rather discouraging for some quarters. Results for 2008 varied considerably
by quarter, but were worst in December, particularly for state and entity level.6 These poll results reflect
business impatience with the macro-level of government, as though neither cantons nor municipal
authorities did much better in the December survey, they did receive higher marks in earlier surveys. Overall,
4 Source: Table V in annex.

5 Source: Table VII in annex.
6 Source: Table VIII in annex.
38 if we take a cross-section of answers regarding the effectiveness of government over the past two years, we
find that the private sector has found the state level least helpful and the municipal level most helpful. If we
look at the other two levels of government, entity and canton, we find that the results for the past two years
suggest that the entity level was less helpful than the cantonal.
In addition to the lack of support from government, the private sector also meets a number of other
barriers specific to this country. We have for some time been monitoring which of these represent the
greatest barriers to business and have received much the same answers quarter after quarter, year after year.
Overall, our surveys suggest that most of the major problems they face in business relate to institutions in BiH,
so that ineffective and inefficient institutions and high institutional costs are major obstacles to business here.
Table IX
To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations
Very Somewhat Little Not at all N.A.

XII '07 III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '07 III '08 VIII '8XII '08
Customs procedures 24 23 19 21 38 23 33 46 19 23 13 17 9 20 13 12 10 10 21 6
High taxes 49 52 50 39 20 19 24 33 19 12 10 17 3 11 6 6 9 6 10 5
Unfair competition 57 46 48 34 19 24 29 26 13 15 9 25 5 9 4 7 6 7 10 6
Corruption 51 36 46 37 18 21 16 25 11 13 9 20 5 9 4 5 15 21 26 15
The performance of the courts 44 45 47 43 25 20 21 22 13 15 11 20 5 7 7 5 13 14 14 11
Political instability 46 44 36 26 32 27 32 39 10 10 10 23 5 10 8 3 8 10 14 9
Labour market regulation 24 21 14 24 23 23 27 31 24 25 27 27 16 23 14 11 13 7 18 6
Tax administration 32 25 23 20 29 27 32 34 18 19 20 29 10 20 10 9 11 8 14 6
Procedures for issuing
work permits 38 37 39 36 28 30 30 29 11 8 9 20 11 15 9 7 11 11 13 5
Environmental regulations 22 21 17 17 25 25 28 35 23 21 21 30 15 21 16 9 15 11 19 13
Safety regulations and standards23 16 16 11 18 29 20 28 30 21 32 36 14 22 16 13 15 12 17 11
Lack of qualified staff 24 18 19 17 16 25 24 34 10 16 20 25 10 25 16 16 39 15 21 7
In most of our polls in 2007 and in early 2008, our sample identified high tax rates, unfair business
practices, political instability, and the courts as the main problems in conducting business. The answers for the
third quarter of 2008 were somewhat different, in identifying the courts as the main obstacle to business, and
only then the tax burden, corruption, and in fourth place unfair business practices. The final quarter poll results
are very similar, with minor deviation, as the main problems were now ranked as follows: the tax burden,
followed by the courts, unfair business practices, and corruption. Summing up the last two years, then, it would
seem that the respondents to our seven quarterly polls were most inclined to identify the following as obstacles
to business (as ranked by the polls): 1. the high tax burden; 2. unfair business practices; 3. political instability;
4. the courts. These obstacles were on average identified by more than 80% of our business sector sample,
which shows the extent to which they are clear and obvious barriers to business in BiH and that they should
be tackled as a priority in any attempt to deal with the problems afflicting the private sector here.
The respondents identified the following as the least problematic issues, from the list of suggestions
provided in the questionnaire: safety regulations and standards, environmental regulations, and a lack of
qualified employees. It is worth noting that according to our last three quarterly surveys the lack of qualified
employees is the least of Bosnian managers’ worries. This suggests, to some degree at any rate, that the
business sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina does not think that there is a major problem in accessing
appropriate human capital. Connecting this to the answers regarding the use of capacity, as there is no lack
of human capital but there is surplus capacity to be put to use, one possible problem would seem to be
insufficient physical capital, or in other words a lack of investment required to bring domestic capacity on line.
5. High direct and indirect costs of domestic institutions

Given that it has become obvious from the results of our surveys that the business success of local
companies is greatly affected by institutions, we have since the beginning of 2008 been monitoring the
relative efficiency of the relevant institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Having identified which are the
key economic and non-market institutions for business operations and therefore, in the final analysis, for 39
economic growth, our goal is to determine how well or poorly those institutions are doing their job or

filling the function for which they were created. The following table presents the results of the last three
quarterly surveys.
Table X
How well do the following institutions do their joy
Very well Fairly well Fairly poorly Very poorly N.A.

IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08XII '08
Central Bank of BiH 34 45 24 30 34 37 43 39 3 3 7 4 3 0 6 6 24 14 20 20
Indirect Tax Authority 23 28 15 16 54 49 47 50 10 8 23 18 5 5 8 9 8 10 7 9
Entity Tax Administrations 14 20 11 6 49 47 46 48 16 13 25 25 7 7 13 17 14 13 5 5
The Judicial System 5 7 4 3 37 29 18 17 13 22 39 36 34 33 30 35 11 9 9 10
European Integration Directorate 3 5 7 7 33 28 22 18 8 9 26 20 8 9 11 10 47 49 34 43
FIPA 2 7 4 3 31 20 29 19 8 11 18 18 18 18 20 19 40 43 29 41
Privatisation Agency 7 8 1 2 29 24 20 14 14 21 28 22 23 22 25 28 28 26 26 34
Banking Agency 10 13 7 5 41 39 28 32 7 7 29 20 6 7 8 7 36 34 28 37
Employment Bureaus 2 11 3 3 43 30 31 36 15 14 34 24 14 20 16 17 26 26 16 20
Foreign-Trade Chamber 2 14 7 4 44 37 28 29 13 13 32 30 10 14 20 18 31 22 13 19
Entity Chambers of Commerce 5 13 9 11 46 35 28 28 17 18 31 27 10 12 20 19 22 22 12 15
Social Funds 2 7 20 2 26 16 9 10 11 7 33 26 8 19 33 37 52 51 23 26
In ranking the institutions which economic theory and practice consider relevant for the business
sector and economic growth, companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina damned the following as the three
least effective: the legal system, the Social Insurance Funds, and the Privatisation Agencies. The list has not
changed much through the year, which is a sufficient indication of where progress is required as a priority.
An average of the last seven polls, including more than 700 companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, leads us
to the same conclusion, namely that private sector considers the following three institutions the least
effective (as ranked): 1. the legal system; 2. the Privatisation Agencies; 3. the Social Insurance Funds.
On the other hand, the most effective institutions are considered to be the Central Bank of BiH, the
Indirect Taxation Authority, and the entity Tax Administrations. The fiscal and monetary agencies have in
nearly all reports to date received the best ranking. The Central Bank of BiH has uniformly received the
best ranking from business in all polls conducted over the past two years, a result which deserves
recognition.
It is worth noting that the results of all four surveys for 2008 make clear the extent to which informal
institutions are availed of in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nearly 70% of companies make use of informal
connections and contacts, to a greater or lesser degree.7 Nearly 70% of the business sector sample also
said that they used a variety of informal or unwritten rules in conducting their business, which is
connected with the use of informal and the existence of inefficient formal institutions.8 In short, the great
majority of our sample uses informal alternative institutions in their day-to-day operations, to a greater
or lesser extent. Moreover, our sample has been increasingly willing to admit to using such means over
the year, but particularly since the third quarter.
Finally, the efficiency of the institutional framework may also be approached directly through the
costs institutions cause the private sector. These costs are known as transaction costs and include both
direct financial costs and indirect costs expressed in the amount of time spent on various procedures,
activities, and processes. According to our third quarter poll, more than half (around 60% from the
corporate sector) said transaction costs are higher than they should be both in terms of financial costs
and of time required for the various procedures.9 Interestingly, over the past two years, our results have
7 Source: Table XI in annex.

8 Source: Table XII in annex.
9 Source: Table XIII and XIV in annex.
40 tended on average to suggest that the private sector considers the opportunity cost in lost time a greater
cost than the cash they pay the authorities, again suggesting dissatisfaction with how domestic
institutions do their job.

During 2008, we also asked how much higher operating costs were as a result of both direct and
indirect institutional costs. We were surprised to find that most companies’ costs were considerably
higher as a result of direct costs, but even more that businesses put such a high estimate on the indirect
costs they face. In other words, the business sector considers the costs due to lengthy procedures,
inefficiency, poor implementation of the law, and so on to be very high.
Table XVI Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how much higher your total costs are because of
indirect payments caused by government
III '08 IX '08 XII '08

BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS
0-5 % 19 19 21 10 13 15 18 13
5-10 % 22 23 21 27 27 23 25 21 29
10-20 % 17 14 24 26 33 5 21 24 13
20-30 % 7 8 3 9 7 18 10 10 13
30-40 % 2 3 0 4 4 5 3 4 0
40-50 % 1 1 0 7 4 18 3 3 4
50-60 % 6 5 7 1 1 2 3 0
> 60 % 3 4 0 3 1 9 7 6 8
n.a. 23 23 24 13 10 23 14 13 21
According to our final survey for 2008, most of the sample (48%) said their costs were between 5%
and 20% higher due to direct payments to institutions.10 Nor should we be surprised to find that costs are
higher in the FBiH than in the RS, given the additional layers of government and the more complex
institutional and administrative structure there. This was also the case in the third quarter. Moreover, our
poll suggests that indirect costs are also very high, with 46% of companies saying they add between 5%
and 20% to their costs. Again the percentage was higher in the FBiH than in the RS, as was the case during
the third quarter.
10 Source: Tables XV and XVI in annex.

41
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
V INCOMES AND SOCIAL WELFARE

1. Fewer households without income during 2008
2. Public expectations subject to various influences during 2008
3. Purchasing power and living standards unchanged through 2008
4. Social protection and minimum living standards largely unchanged
The Social Stability Index has been in decline since 2001
There are several reasons for this:

• The obvious connection between social, economic, and political stability: The final survey of 2008
shows a more than 0.7 correlation between the Social Stability Index and the Economic Stability
Index, while the correlation of the social and political stability indices is 0.58.
• Growing inequality: The GINI coefficient increased from 0.26 in 2004 to 0.41 in 2007, even though
the number of people living in poverty decreased from 19 to 17 percent. Nearly the same number
Table
Correlation between the social, economic, and political stability indices for May 00 - Dec 08.
Social Stability Index Economic Stability Index Political Stability Index

Social Stability Index 1 0.72 0.58
Economic Stability Index 0.72 1 0.56
Political Stability Index 0.58 0.56 1
Note: Range of -1 and 1 (0 no connection between variables)
Source: EWS, quarterly reports.
42 live around the poverty line. Our surveys show about 50% of households with less than 500 KM in
monthly income, with seasonal ups and downs. Although this number is lower now than in 2001 or
Annual Report 2008 - Incomes and Social Welfare
2002, the increased cost of living means that many of those with nominally higher incomes are in
fact struggling to meet basic needs.
• The general public’s expectations are gloomy, with constant worry regarding the economic situation,
the impact of privatisation, whether they will be able to save, and price increases. The decline in the
index since 2007 is related to higher prices and living costs and deteriorating expectations.
• Although average wages have almost tripled since 2000, the obvious consumerism that has swept
the country had increased household debt levels. This is a very dangerous situation when job
uncertainty is on the rise. The fact that household debt in 2008 was above 6 billion KM is very
disturbing.
• Prices grew moderately during the first six years of EWS, but the introduction of VAT and the rise in
global food and oil prices brought uncertainty. Moreover, it has become increasingly difficult to
avoid paying utility and power bills, which was precisely the “give” in the system that allowed many
people to cover their basic needs.
• Generally, the situation regarding minimum standards of living and social protection is very weak.
Conditions in the Federation suggest things are worse there than in the Republic of Srpska, but the
social security system is fragile and subject to major political discretion in both entities. After
problems in 2001 and 2002, the pension system has remained stable, though there were minor
issues in 2008. There is clearly a problem regarding the ratio of the registered employed and
pensioners, which has been falling, however. The current PAYE system will face serious problems in
years to come.
We have paid more attention to social exclusion over the past few years. The 2007 Human
Development Report found that almost 50% of population were socially excluded, with the most
disadvantaged groups being old people, the young, the Roma, people with disabilities, and the rural
population, with some impact of ethnic background and gender. Ethnic minority groups like returnees to
areas where one constitutive people is dominant reveal the clear problems of Bosnia and Herzegovina –
the lack of political or economic integration, combined with problems finding employment or accessing
social protection, education, or health care. These problems will become more prominent now that
almost all donors have left the country.
Shifting out attention to 2008, we note a certain recovery of the Social Stability Index, caused largely
by isolated trends and events in economic and political life. In November 2008, it was at 46 points, three
points higher than it had been in late 2007.
As already mentioned in the quarterly reports, particular trends in the social sector often have their
causes in other areas. Consequently, it is worth noting that in 2008 the Economic Stability Index recovered
considerably, as did the Ethnic Stability Index, while the turbulent political situation produced fluctuations
in the Political Stability Index. As noted above, the Social Stability Index is strongly correlated with both
the economic and political stability indexes, so that change in one sector produces change in the others.
The Social Stability Index reflects problems facing Bosnian and Herzegovinian society: low incomes,
based on a poor economy and an undereducated workforce, inadequate policy to exploit the country’s
competitive advantages, and the absence of appropriate government (social) programmes or
mechanisms, as indicated by our own sample’s expectations, all speak to the fragility of the social security
system. The year just past was marked by growing prices, pre- and post election instability, political
tension and confrontation, declining regional stability following the declaration of independence of
Kosovo, and weakening industrial and economic growth (particularly during the last quarter of the year).
Finally, even the most important event of 2008, the signing of the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement with the European Union, has left little trace at the level of social stability, any more than on
our sample’s opinions on related questions.
The increase in the value of the Social Stability Index during 2008 was due largely to a reduction in
the number of households without any income or on low incomes (less than 500 KM), an increase in
average salaries which kept pace with increasing living costs, and somewhat better expectations (except
during the last quarter). During 2008, the percentage of the samples in the Republika Srpska and Brčko
district ready to support public protests, strikes, or demonstrations tended downwards, while rising in the 43
Federation. Fewer people also said they wanted to emigrate, particularly amongst the middle-aged (from

36 to 50 years of age). Pensions increased, though the increase was greater for the highest pensions even
in percentage terms (around 22.7% in the RS and 10.5% in the FBiH, compared to 6.7% in the RS and 5.1%
in the FBiH for lower pensions).
1. Fewer households without income during 2008

Looking at our survey data for 2008, we find that for two quarters there were no households
reporting no income in the FBiH and RS, and for three quarters in Brčko District (see Table I). This is a
reversal of trends in previous years, as there have always been some people who claimed to have no
sources of income.1
Table I Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child
allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)
FBiH RS Brčko District

No income 2,2 1,0 4,3 0,8 4,3
< 100 KM 2,1 3,5 1,0 2,4 5,2 7,6 5,6 4,5 5,6 17,1 7,9 9,2
101 - 200 7,8 1,1 2,2 1,3 9,8 5,6 6,7 3,1 24,1 6,9 13,6 5,3
201 - 300 8,7 16,7 15,4 10,1 9,3 12,6 15,4 16,0 30,2 25,4 38,4 27,8
301 - 400 8,5 14,7 15,8 14,4 9,9 9,8 17,7 14,4 6,8 8,6 19,0 24,2
401 - 500 8,5 12,1 11,7 12,2 9,9 11,4 13,2 11,4 11,1 9,0 3,8 14,1
501 - 600 6,6 7,8 9,5 10,8 6,7 8,8 6,7 10,1 8,1 2,9 4,0 5,9
601 - 700 6,3 6,0 6,7 8,3 4,5 8,1 4,6 7,4 4,1 7,3 4,1
701 - 800 8,2 5,0 5,5 5,9 3,5 4,3 2,3 4,4 2,2 1,0
801 - 900 3,9 4,6 5,9 5,7 3,7 2,5 2,7 2,2
901 - 1000 2,4 1,4 3,3 3,3 3,1 2,4 1,6 2,0 0,5
1001 - 1100 5,3 0,5 0,9 1,3 3,8 1,6 0,4
1101 - 1200 1,3 0,2 0,1 0,2 1,4 0,3 0,3
1201 - 1300 3,2 0,4 0,2 0,5 2,1 0,5 0,3 0,8
1301 - 1400 0,7 2,1
1401 - 1500 1,5 2,2
1501 - 1600 1,4 0,8
1601 - 1700 0,9 0,3 0,7
1701 - 1800 0,4 0,5
1801-1900 0,2 1,0
1901 - 2000 0,0 1,0
> 2000 KM/DM 1,4 0,8
NA 18,4 25,8 20,4 23,7 13,8 24,6 22,1 24,0 9,2 5,4 4,4 12,6
100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
No income 2,2 1,0 4,3 0,8 4,3
< 100 KM 2,1 3,5 1,0 2,4 5,2 7,6 5,6 4,5 5,6 17,1 7,9 9,2
101 - 200 7,8 1,1 2,2 1,3 9,8 5,6 6,7 3,1 24,1 6,9 13,6 5,3
201 - 300 8,7 16,7 15,4 10,1 9,3 12,6 15,4 16,0 30,2 25,4 38,4 27,8
301 - 400 8,5 14,7 15,8 14,4 9,9 9,8 17,7 14,4 6,8 8,6 19,0 24,2
401 - 500 8,5 12,1 11,7 12,2 9,9 11,4 13,2 11,4 11,1 9,0 3,8 14,1
SUBTOTAL to 500 37,9 48,2 47,1 40,3 48,3 47,0 59,4 49,5 77,8 66,9 86,9 80,6
1501 - 1600 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
1601 - 1700 0,9 0,3 0,7
1701 - 1800 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
1801-1900 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
1901 - 2000 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
More than 2000 KM/DM 1,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
SUBTOTAL >1500 4,3 0,0 0,3 0,0 4,8 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0
1 It is worth noting that the Social Security system in the narrow sense (social welfare and home help allowances, child allowance, and benefit) has
recently shown some stability, with the caveat that the amounts involved remain very low.
44 When we look at low-income households (less than 500 KM) we find that the number at the end of
the year is not much different from what it was in the beginning. According to our quarterly surveys, the
number of low-income households was up moderately in November 2008, compared to March that same
year, in Brčko and the Republika Srpska, but not in the Federation, where it had fallen quite significantly.
There were significant fluctuations during the year in both entities, but these were largely linked to
seasonal trends affecting household income (income from agriculture, construction, remittances from
abroad, etc.). According to our poll, the number of low-income households in November 2008 was still
highest in Brčko (80.6%) and lowest in the Federation (40.3%). The percentage of low-income households
in the Republika Srpska was 49.5%.
If we look at the distribution of income in what we term ethnic majority areas, we find trends for
2008 which correspond to those by entity, with a reduction in low-income households between March
and November 2008 in Croat majority areas (from 25.9% to 21.6%), but a moderate increase in the other
two ethnic majority areas, from 48.3% to 49.5% in Serb majority areas and from 41.3% to 45.1% in
Bosniak majority ones. These trends are not present for the minority samples in these areas. In fact, the
percentage of minority sample low-income households rose steeply in both Bosniak majority areas (from
56.2% to 77.8%) and Croat majority areas (from 22.1% to 45.6%), but fell in Serb majority areas (from
67.3% to 66.8%). For more see Table II.
Table II Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child
allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)
Income in KM Minority sample in BMA Minority sample in CMA Minority sample in SMA
Quarter March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
No income 2,7 0,7 0,5 2,1 4,3 0,8
< 100 1,6 3,9 1,3 2,6 3,9 2,1 0,1 1,5 5,2 7,6 5,6 4,5
101 - 200 8,3 1,3 2,0 1,2 6,0 0,7 2,8 1,6 9,8 5,6 6,7 3,1
201 - 300 9,6 19,0 17,2 11,4 5,6 8,6 8,8 5,0 9,3 12,6 15,4 16,0
301 - 400 9,2 17,3 18,8 16,1 6,0 5,8 5,1 7,6 9,9 9,8 17,7 14,4
401 - 500 9,8 14,0 12,2 13,8 4,0 5,2 10,1 5,8 9,9 11,4 13,2 11,4
Subtotal to 500 41,3 55,5 52,3 45,1 25,9 22,4 29,1 21,6 48,3 47,0 59,4 49,5
No income 3,7 2,0 0,5 1,0 10,1 0,9
< 100 6,9 1,4 2,0 4,3 0,9 1,8 2,6 9,6 9,0 5,2 4,6
101 - 200 17,6 0,6 2,0 6,2 5,0 1,8 1,9 2,5 7,7 11,1 11,8 3,8
201 - 300 6,8 21,3 15,4 29,8 4,2 22,5 11,4 15,4 23,2 27,3 25,9 21,6
301 - 400 9,7 24,5 24,5 17,5 5,6 27,2 10,8 9,4 8,2 8,7 16,8 25,9
401 - 500 11,4 9,0 10,6 20,0 6,0 10,3 14,4 15,7 8,5 4,6 9,5 10,9
Subtotal to 500 56,2 56,9 56,5 77,8 22,1 63,5 39,3 45,6 67,3 60,7 70,1 66,8
To finish, we will review the distribution of income for certain other categories of the population (see
Table III in annex). According to our survey, there was a reduction between the end of 2007 and the end
of 2008 in the number of low-income households in both urban and rural areas (from 42.9% to 37.5% and
from 54.9% to 50.3%, respectively). This downward trend is also present if we disaggregate data on the
basis of gender. The number of low income households is unchanged for the 18-35 age group, where it
was in any case lowest (29.5% in late 2008). It is down for both the other age groups. (See Table III in
annex).
2. Public expectations subject to various influences during 2008

Comparing the first and last surveys regarding household economic circumstances during the past
year, we find a reduction in the percentage who felt the situation had improved, with essentially no
change in the percentage who said it had deteriorated. The percentage who described the situation as
having improved was down from 13.48% to 10.76%, while the percentage for whom it has deteriorated
did not change (see Table IV).
Table IV 45
Over past year, household economic status has (in %)?

BiH FBiH RS Brčko District BMA CMA SMA
Survey March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08. March 08. Nov 08.
TOTAL BETTER 13,48 10,76 12,15 10,24 15,64 9,39 9,71 43,77 10,33 8,7 18,6 16,3 15,6 9,4
STAY THE SAME 51,46 53,78 49,24 51,95 54,83 58,24 49,86 28,00 47,30 49,7 56,1 60,8 54,8 58,2
TOTAL WORSE 34,32 34,46 37,51 36,73 29,30 31,63 40,43 25,41 41,45 40,5 23,6 22,0 29,3 31,6
DK/NA 0,74 0,99 1,10 1,09 0,23 0,74 2,82 0,92 1,1 1,8 0,9 0,2 0,7
Total 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,
There were a number of significant events during the year which affected public expectations. At the
beginning of the year, prices rose, largely due to global pressures on international fuel and food markets.
In the middle of the year, it was the campaign for the local elections held in October, while at the end of
the year there was the global financial crisis and its expected impact on the real economy and financial
system of the country. Given this, we need not be surprised that there was a pattern of deteriorating and
improving expectations, but in our report we will focus on a comparison of expectations in late 2008 with
those for late 2007.
The percentage of the sample who expect the economic situation to deteriorate over the coming year
was down in late 2008 on late 2007, from 70.8% to 39.7% in Bosniak majority areas and from 46.1% to
20.1% in Croat majority areas, while essentially unchanged in Serb majority areas (29.6% as against
27.3%).2 At the same time, the percentage who expect the economic situation to improve was up in
Bosniak majority areas (from 7% to 17.2%) as well as in Croat majority areas (from 6.6% to 23.2%), but
down in Serb majority areas (from 22% to 19.1%). For further detail see Table V in annex. These
expectations related to the general economic situation, as certain indicators (industrial production,
employment growth, etc) suggest more growth in the Federation than in the Republika Srpska.
The sample's expectations regarding privatisation and its impact on household finances can be seen
from Table VI. If we compare our survey data for November 2008 and November 2007, we see that there
has been an increase in pessimism, as more people think that continued privatisation will have a negative
impact on their household finances. This increase is evident in both entities, while there has been a
reduction in the level of pessimism in Brčko District. In November 2008, 66.4% of the federal sample,
53.5% of the RS sample, and 33.6% of the Brčko District sample took a pessimistic view of the potential
impact of further privatisation. These levels reflect the poor results of privatisation during 2008, as many
planned privatisation initiatives failed to be realised in both entities, while the privatisation process is
being brought to a close in Brčko District. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the percentage who think
that continued privatisation will have a positive impact on their household circumstances was down in the
Federation and the Republika Srpska, but up in Brčko District.
Table VI
Expect further privatization to affect their household's economic status….
FBiH RS Brčko District Bosniak Majority areas Croat Majority areas Serb Majority areas
Quarter Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08.
TOTAL NEGATIVE 57,5 66,4 52,0 53,5 80,8 33,6 57,1 68,8 59,0 56,9 52,0 53,5
TOTAL POSITIVE 16,3 10,1 16,6 11,3 40,1 16,6 7,9 15,1 18,9 16,6 11,3
DK/NA 26,2 23,5 31,4 35,2 19,2 26,3 26,2 23,3 25,9 24,3 31,4 35,2
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
After a particularly tumultuous period in late 2007 and early 2008, when the prices of goods and
services rose as a consequence of external shocks and global price increases for food and fuel, the
2 Our survey findings as to the percentage who expect the situation to deteriorate in 2009 are in line with the Gallup Voice of the People polls, which
places Bosnia and Herzegovina around the middle of the scale by number of pessimists - www.voice-of-the-people.net
46 remainder of 2008 may be characterised as a period of relative calm, if not one in which concerns over
future price rises were entirely absent (see table VIII). There was a reduction in the percentage of the
sample who expect prices to rise over the coming six months in both the Federation and the RS (down
from 89.51% to 78.08% and from 83.87% to 74.92% respectively) as well as in Brčko District (from 100%
to 0.43%), between November 2007 and November 2008. It is worth mentioning, however, that the
percentage of pessimists, which is to say the percentage of the sample who expect prices to rise, has been
falling steadily through the year, as a consequence of lower oil prices, as well as of certain measures taken
by the government to control profit margins.
Table VIII
Will prices rise or fall over next six months (%)
FBiH RS Brčko District

Nov 07. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Nov 07. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Nov 07. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
TOTAL FALL 6,48 3,93 2,40 6,24 7,40 7,48 4,02 2,46 13,44 8,88 38,53 4,18 38,41 35,56
TOTAL RISE 89,51 87,05 76,32 74,28 78,08 83,87 80,62 89,28 71,59 74,92 100,00 53,42 59,62 10,76 0,43
No change 2,08 5,13 15,01 13,70 9,31 6,62 11,97 5,30 10,56 11,67 8,05 33,33 46,01 61,96
DK/NA 1,93 3,89 6,27 5,78 5,22 2,03 3,39 2,96 4,41 4,53 2,87 4,83 2,05
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
The current economic situation and uncertainty regarding the global economic crisis have failed to
have a significant impact on the percentages who expect their household cash income to change. Thus,
comparing November 2007 to November 2008, we find a reduction in the percentage who expect their
cash income to fall in both the Federation (from 19.01% to 14.22%) and the Republika Srpska (from
14.42% to 8.89%). At the same time, the percentage of the sample who expect household cash income to
increase went up in both entities, from 16.22% to 18.35% in the Federation and from 20.51% to 25.64%
in the Republika Srpska. It should be noted that these trends do not hold when looking at the percentage
of people in Croat majority areas who expect household income to reduce or those who expect
household income to increase in Bosniak majority areas (for more see Table VII in annex).
One of the key indicators regarding concern for the future is the public's expectations regarding their
ability to save over the coming year. Looking at our survey data for the fourth quarter of 2008, in
comparison to the fourth quarter of 2007, we find that the percentage who expect to be able to save
reduced in both entities as well as in Brčko district - from 11.93% to 6.33% in the Federation, from 12.75%
to 7.5% in the Republika Srpska, and from 3.95% to 0.43% in Brčko district (see Table IX in annex). Any
reduction in ability to save or in the quantity of savings, under conditions of a global credit crunch, will
lead to a significant reduction in consumption. Around 50% of all lending in Bosnia and Herzegovina is for
consumer loans, so that any shortfall in domestic sources of financing, if accompanied by a reduced flow
of foreign loans, increases the likelihood of recession and crisis within the country.
Table X
Think they might lose their job during next three months (%)
FBiH RS Brčko District 18-35 36-50 51+

Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08.
17,63 15,41 16,91 22,28 67,27 17,74 22,62 17,78 14,46 17,88 12,63
Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research
That the public are aware of the possibility that the economic crisis will shift from the financial sector
to the real economy is clear from our survey findings regarding the likelihood of losing one’s job over the
coming three months (see Table X below). In November 2008, the number of people who thought they
might lose their jobs over the coming three months was approximately 20% of the total number of the
employed, which is to say 15.41% in the Federation and as many as 22.28% in the Republika Srpska. This
data on job security is in line with the findings of economic analysts at the end of the year. Thus,
published estimates suggest that the recession facing Bosnia and Herzegovina may lead to between 2000
and 2500 people losing their jobs in the metalworking and construction sectors. It is interesting to note 47
that there could be as many as 700 to 1000 redundancies in the banking sector.

That the situation at the end of 2008 is, nevertheless, better in certain respects than the situation in
late 2007 is indicated by our sample’s willingness to emigrate. According to our November 2008 survey
results, 40.36% of the overall sample said they would leave the country if they could. This compares to
45.58% of the sample in November 2007. The 18 to 35 age group are still the most ready to emigrate,
with nearly 2/3 expressing a desire to do so.
Graph 1
Percentages of sample who support protests regarding (November '08)
At the end of this section we will now look at the percentage willing to support the holding of public
protests, strikes, and demonstrations related to particular issues (job loss, low salaries, civil rights, etc). If
we look at our survey results from November 2008, in comparison to those for November 2008, we find a
reduction in the Republika Srpska and Brčko district, but an increase in the Federation (see Table XI in annex).
Reviewing the results for November 2008, we find the following:
• Residents of the Federation remain more likely to support the idea of protests, strikes, and
demonstrations than residents of the RS or Brčko district.
• Rural inhabitants are more likely to support organised forms of expression of dissatisfaction
regarding particular social issues than urban dwellers.
• The 18 to 35 age group are most likely to support protests, unlike earlier quarters, when it was the
36 to 50 age group.
• The population of the Federation is most likely to support protest with regard to job loss (61.3%),
lower salaries and pensions (60.8%), and inability to find employment (58.2%).
• Residents of the Republika Srpska are most likely to support holding protests and demonstrations
with regard to the recovery of property (41.9%), the behaviour of the international community
(39.9%), and perceived threats to ethnic or civil rights (39.0%).
• In Brčko district, the sample is most likely to support protests over low salaries and pensions
(38.8%) and job loss (33.7%).
3. Purchasing power and living standards unchanged through

2008
A look at the data from the entity statistics agencies on average salaries and the consumer price index
lead one to conclude that the rise in salaries during 2008 was matched by rising living costs (see Table
XIII). While at the beginning of the year there was a record increase of nearly 20% in the average salary
in the Republika Srpska, there were no further significant increases during the year itself. Average salaries
in October 2008 were 780.00 KM in the Republika Srpska and 780.51 KM in the Federation. Compared to
December 2007, this represents a nominal increase of 24.68% in the Republika Srpska and of 12.02% in
the Federation.
48 Table XIII Trends for average salaries and the Consumer Price Index for the RS and the FBiH (December 07. -
November 08.)
RS
Month 12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/08 09/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 Change 10/08 - 12/07
Average salary 628,00 584,00 724,00 731,00 751,00 758,00 768,00 765,00 762,00 783,00 783,00 790,00 - 124,68
Consumer price index 100,80 101,50 100,30 100,90 99,30 100,80 100,90 100,00 100,20 100,00 100,70 99,40 99,40 104,2*
FBiH
Month 12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/07 09/08 10/08 11/08 12/08 Change 10/08 - 12/07
Average salary 696,74 709,84 713,20 723,66 735,11 751,82 740,60 763,51 759,11 773,44 780,51 - - 112,02
Consumer price index - 101,26 100,42 100,91 99,74 100,91 100,95 100,11 99,60 100,14 100,76 99,37 - 104,71*
Source: Entity Statistics Offices
In the Republika Srpska, salaries rose most for employees in health care, education, the generation
of electricity, and mining. In the Federation, they rose most in agriculture, mining, healthcare, and public
administration (Table XIII b). Some areas of employment, including transport and warehousing, real
estate, and financial mediation in the Republika Srpska, actually saw salaries go down if one compares
salaries from October 2008 with those for December 2007.
Table XIIIb
Data on average salaries by sector, in the RS and the FBiH
RS FBiH
December 2007. October 2008 Salary Growth (Oct. 08/ Dec. 07) December 2007. October 2008 Salary Growth (Oct. 08/ Dec. 07)
Agriculture 537,00 659,00 22,72% 607,03 727,30 19,81%
Fisheries 555,00 683,00 23,06% 423,56 483,66 14,19%
Ore extraction and quarries 672,00 903,00 34,38% 645,98 751,05 16,27%
Manufacturing 446,00 510,00 14,35% 507,04 562,18 10,87%
Electricity, gas, and water generation and supply 697,00 871,00 24,96% 1082,41 1235,22 14,12%
Construction 533,00 567,00 6,38% 450,95 516,36 14,50%
The retail, wholesale, and repair or cars, bicycles,
and articles for personal and household use 442,00 536,00 21,27% 482,09 522,85 8,45%
Hotels and restaurants 400,00 450,00 12,50% 460,88 517,32 12,25%
Transport and warehousing 763,00 752,00 -1,44% 871,36 977,26 12,15%
Financial mediation 1269,00 1204,00 -5,12% 1254,25 1257,11 0,23%
Property and renting 688,00 676,00 -1,74% 693,70 757,62 9,21%
Government administration, defence,
and social security 910,00 1059,00 16,37% 951,99 1099,49 15,49%
Education 552,00 890,00 61,23% 740,23 820,20 10,80%
Healthcare and social welfare 664,00 1143,00 72,14% 827,28 971,48 17,43%
Other communal, public, or private services 530,00 620,00 16,98% 702,45 744,77 6,02%
Total - average 628,00 783,00 24,68% 696,74 780,51 12,02%
During 2008, the average, minimum, and maximum pensions in both entities were increased.
According to the entity pension and disability insurance funds, the average pension for November 2008
was 368.42 KM in the Federation and 319.41 KM in the Republika Srpska. This represents an increase of
11.72% in the Federation and 19.7% in the Republika Srpska, compared to January 2008. Over the same
period, the minimum pension increased 6.67% in the RS and 5.1% in the Federation. As for the
maximum pension, it increased 10.5% in the Federation and 22.66% in the Republika Srpska (see
following table).
The entity statistics agency data indicates that the consumer price index was lower at the end of 2008
than at the beginning of the year, when it had undergone significant growth (see Table XIV). If we
compare the data from November 2008 with the data for December 2007, we find that the consumer
price index was up 4.2% in the Republika Srpska and 4.71% in the Federation (Table III).
Table XIIIa 49
Data on pensions, RS and FBiH

FBiH RS
January 08. May 08. August 08. November 08. January 08. May 08. August 08. November 08.
Lowest pension 281,98 289,17 296,36 296,36 150,00 150,00 150,00 160,00
Highest pension 1263,94 1393,48 1393,48 1393,48 1148,60 1329,00 1329,00 1408,88
Average pension 329,76 340,04 347,50 368,42 266,84 300,60 300,95 319,41
Table XIV
Consumer price index (CPI) itemized (January 2007 - November 2008)
RS FBiH
I 2008 / I 2008 / I 2008 / I 2008 / XI 2008 / XI 2008 / XI 2008 / XI 2008 /
XII 2007 I 2007 XII 2007 I 2007 X 2008 XI 2007 X 2008 XI 2007
Total 101,5 105,8 101,26 106,35 99,40 105,10 99,37 105,95
Food and non-alcoholic beverages 102,2 110,4 101,97 111,96 99,80 107,30 99,63 109,38
Alcohol and tobacco 100 100,2 99,97 100,79 100,00 101,70 100,09 101,40
Clothes and shoes 99,9 97,8 99,99 97,31 100,00 98,10 99,64 96,47
Accommodation, water and other utilities 102,2 103,9 102,52 105,33 100,30 107,70 101,69 112,14
Furniture, furnishings, and regular maintainance 100,2 101,4 100,24 101,39 100,10 102,80 100,24 103,33
Healthcare 100 101,9 99,88 99,8 100,10 100,80 100,07 99,45
Transport 102 111 100,59 108,03 94,70 104,30 94,34 101,72
Communications 103,8 105,5 103,44 103,14 102,80 106,60 99,97 104,80
Recreation and culture 100,4 99,9 100,72 103,15 100,00 104,90 99,95 106,47
Education 100,7 104,5 100 104,38 100,00 101,10 100,60 97,96
Restaurants and hotels 100,6 101,7 100,49 108,38 100,20 105,60 101,04 107,75
Other goods and services 100,6 101,6 100,52 101,15 100,00 103,60 100,02 104,38
The data in the above table indicate significant stability in the prices of food and fuels, as well as in
their overall impact on other goods and services. Consequently, given that food and fuel were the main
engines of growth for the consumer price index at the beginning of the year, as they fell towards the end
of 2008 so did the overall consumer price index in both entities. One should stress in this regard the role
of state, entity, and cantonal government in making use of appropriate instruments at their disposal
(commodity reserves, market inspectors to prevent price gouging, and other similar mechanisms) with a
view to maintaining price stability, particularly as we approach the expected crisis.
Comparing our survey results for
November 2008 with those for November Graph 3 Purchasing power in Southeastern Europe in
2007 makes clear that food (including coffee 2007 and 2008 (in EUR)
and beverages) and debt repayments now
account for a larger percentage of
household spending in the Federation, while
food and fuel and car maintenance require a
greater share of resources in the Republika
Srpska than previously (see Table XV in
annex). It is concerning that the percentage
of household spending accounted for by
food has increased in both the Federation
and the Republika Srpska, reducing the
amount of disposable income for other
spending. It is also concerning that there is
an increase in spending on repayments,
which is at least in part due to the increase
50 in bank rates over the past few months, which have increased the level of payments required to service
existing and new loans.
That Bosnia is at the bottom of the scale in Europe when it comes to purchasing power has been
confirmed by the GFK marketing agencies study of purchasing power across Europe. According to their
data, the public in Bosnia and Herzegovina has on average €2325 at their disposal, putting them 36th out
of 41 countries in Europe. The situation in 2008 was a little better than in 2007, but only when one looks
at the nominal amount and not the country’s ranking (see Table XV a in annex and the following graph).
Modern living standards are also reflected in the possession of basic consumer durable goods, like
telephones, mobile phones, computers (with access to the Internet), and cars. That there has been little
significant change in this regard is clear from Table XVI, below. According to our sample, more than half
of households in the Republika Srpska and Federation possessed a car in November 2008. Similarly, the
data show that 83.22% of households in the Federation and 71.41% of households in the Republika Srpska
have a telephone, but considerably fewer have access to the Internet (20.78% in the Federation and
14.22% in the Republika Srpska). According to our survey, approximately 3/4 of people above the age of
18 in the Federation and approximately 2/3 in the Republika Srpska possess a mobile phone.
Table VI
Households with durable consumer goods (in %)
FBiH RS
Nov 05. Dec 06. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 05. Dec 06. Nov 07. Nov 08.
Telephones 86,68 79,46 81,47 83,22 73,09 75,80 63,85 71,41
Mobile phones 43,20 56,83 63,65 74,27 48,33 58,42 64,85 65,23
Dial up internet access 7,96 11,57 15,28 20,78 8,59 12,37 8,67 14,22
Car n/p 47,26 50,86 53,08 n/p 51,49 48,72 54,59
4. Social protection and minimum living standards largely

unchanged
The social protection system in both entities is in serious difficulties. It is facing a major increase in
demand for the various forms of social welfare, which are still under development, as well as being
burdened by inappropriate or inadequate legal arrangements which enjoin a broader range of social
protection than budgetary capacity allows. Better socio-economic conditions in the country during 2008,
evident largely in fewer people describing their household standard of living as below average, are
certainly a positive development. As a result, in November 2008, 38.7% of the federal sample, 49.9% of
the Republika Srpska sample, and 67.4% of the Brčko district sample described themselves as below
average in terms of household economic status (see Table XVII). This situation represents an
improvement on the end of 2007 in both the Federation and Brčko district, but no change in the Republika
Srpska. Economic self-assessment is strongly linked to income levels and distribution by household, but
also to the presence or absence of mechanisms for ensuring a minimum standard of living (price controls,
social welfare programs, etc).
Table XVII
Self-description of household economic status(%)
BiH FBiH RS Brčko District Urban Rural BMA CMA SMA

Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08.Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08.
Barely surviving 13,2 8,1 11,0 5,1 14,6 11,5 48,9 25,7 8,5 5,9 16,7 9,7 11,0 5,1 10,8 5,1 14,6 11,5
Well below average 14,6 11,4 14,6 9,2 14,6 14,3 15,9 17,3 13,8 10,9 15,2 11,8 14,0 9,4 16,4 8,6 14,6 14,3
Below average 20,4 24,3 20,6 24,4 20,3 24,1 18,7 24,4 19,8 23,3 20,9 25,0 21,1 26,3 18,8 17,0 20,3 24,1
TOTAL below average 48,3 43,8 46,2 38,7 49,5 49,9 83,4 67,4 42,2 40,0 52,8 46,6 46,2 40,7 46,0 30,7 49,5 49,9
During 2008, the following trends were characteristic for the social protection system and the 51
provision of a minimum standard of living:

• Rising prices at the beginning of the year affected the most vulnerable, particularly rises in the price
of food, fuel, and community services or utilities. Action was taken to preserve a minimum
standard of living, like the allocation of 28 million KM by the RS government for the worst-off or the
introduction of cash payments for unemployed demobilised soldiers in the Federation, but with
considerable delay, so that their impact has been questionable. Introducing payments for
demobilised soldiers in the Federation has in fact endangered the federal budget itself and there
has been considerable talk about possible bankruptcy. The second half of the year brought with it
a certain dose of relief, as food and fuel prices fell on world markets, while the entity governments
took action to prevent price gouging with regard to certain goods and services.
• Early in the year, the minimum pension was increased in both entities, as was the coefficient used
to calculate the pension in the first place. This produced a shortfall in the funds required for
payment throughout 2008. The Republika Srpska pension and invalidity insurance fund was already
looking for additional resources in February to pay pensions, while the federal fund was in constant
fear of the consequences of a European Court of Justice ruling in favour of Duško Karanović and the
possibility that it might have to make supplementary payments to a large number of beneficiaries.
Although the RS pension fund’s action against the federal fund, intended to force it to take over
38,000 beneficiaries and pay out around 118 million KM in supplementary payments, was in the
end thrown out by the Mostar court, the case introduced a high degree of uncertainty into the
federal fund’s expenditure planning. Serious indicators of the need for reform of the pension and
invalidity insurance system were presented at the World Bank conference launching a special
report on the impact of aging in countries in transition.3 According to their indicators and analyses,
Bosnia and Herzegovina belongs amongst the "ageing countries which have taken up reform too
late" and which face particular risks associated with aging-- not merely because of demographic
changes but also because the reforms required have not been brought far enough to assist in
ameliorating the consequences of ageing. The authors predict that by 2025 the over 65s will
account for somewhat more than 20% of the population, while the overall population will fall by
approximately 3%. In their view, the practical implications of an ageing population and securing
adequate living conditions for the elderly are such that serious attention must be paid to sectoral
policy regarding the labour market (in particular greater inclusion), productivity improvements, and
reforms of the pension and education systems, as well as migration management. It is clear from
the numbers of the employed, unemployed, and pensioners at the end of 2007 and the end of 2008
in Table XVIII that the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina have not taken any radical steps.
Graph 4
Self-description of household economic status (%)
3 Chawla, Betherman, Banerji, et al., From Red to Grey – the “Third Transition” of Aging Populations in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union,
World Bank, Washington, 2008
52 • While public spending in Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to be at an exceptionally high level
(approximately 45% of GDP), spending on social protection and welfare remains at approximately
15% of GDP, which is to say less than the European average. It is worth noting that both state level
and entity bodies have little difficulty in rejecting allocation for social protection and ensuring a
minimum standard of living, due to the size of public administration and salaries in the public
sector, even though a number of public works or investments could reasonably be handed over to
the private sector, leaving more room for allocation for social welfare.
• During 2008, steps were taken towards the creation of a national social inclusion strategy, but there
is still no clear indication as to when the strategy itself will be completed and adopted. The social
inclusion strategy is important because it focuses on the more than 50% of the population in Bosnia
and Herzegovina which may be considered excluded and is intended to provide a systematic
approach to development in all those areas which lead to such a situation (education, health care,
the labour market, employment, the social welfare system, and social services).
• The latter part of the year was marked by the announcement of a major economic crisis, followed
by the collapse of the world financial system in early October 2008. Given that the effects will be
felt on the Bosnian and Herzegovinian economy, a major task facing the authorities will be to
ensure minimum standards of living and adequate social protection for all those who will need it.
The pension system in Bosnia and Herzegovina, like the health care system, is entirely dependent
upon the contributions levied from employee salaries. So long as the economic impact of the crisis
results in declining economic activity, with a concomitant reduction in employment and salaries, it
is to be expected that there will be serious problems in the health care and pension and invalidity
insurance sectors, particularly given that the number of beneficiaries will not fall in the foreseeable
future. That the authorities are also concerned about the income of the healthcare and pension
insurance funds is clear from recent moves by the Republika Srpska government, e.g. to include
representatives of the unions and employers in "social dialogue" at the end of the year with a view
to raising the minimum salary used in calculating tax and contributions from 250 KM to 320 KM.
• A number of steps taken by the government during 2008 indicate that more attention is still needed
to systematic solutions for ensuring a minimum standard of living and adequate social welfare and
protection. The RS government introduced regulations at the end of the year to increase the
allocation for social welfare, but the burden will be borne by the municipalities, so that we will no
doubt soon see problems in a number of smaller municipalities whose budgets are barely enough
to finance current spending (salaries and material expenses). The RS government will contribute
only 5% of the 70 million marks required to finance social welfare at the local level. Representatives
of the international institutions, like the World Bank, are fully aware of this problem and are
working with the authorities in the country to develop systematic solutions for more effective ways
of targeting social benefits. There is considerable concern that the global financial crisis will have
its greatest impact on the poor,4 particularly in those countries which lack an efficient system of
targeting social benefits and where the government authorities have considerable discretion in
determining the allocation of resources.
4 Statement by Kathy Lindert, World Bank Social Protection Portfolio Manager.

53
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
VI SOCIAL INCLUSION
1. Some aspects of social inclusion
2. Minority and majority samples share same views on the economy
3. Pessimism over the political situation
4. Ethnic identity and citizenship in conflict for most
1. Some aspects of social inclusion

A review of the social inclusion sections in the quarterly reports for 2008 reveals that the main
aspects of social exclusion covered related to the economic situation and household finances, as well as
the attitudes of the various ethnic groups. We have attempted to expand the analysis of certain of these
aspects by looking at categories of the population that may be considered excluded on the grounds of
status, place of residence, gender, or ethnicity.1 As the situation did not change significantly over the year,
we will focus in this annual report on attitudinal changes for the various socially excluded categories of
the population between the end of 2007 and the end of 2008.
Ethnic divisions remain one of the most important factors determining social exclusion in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and we will now look at three ways this is the case: First, as a direct cause of the exclusion
of minority groups, i.e. those who do not belong to the majority ethnicity in the area; second, as a weak
institutional capacity to prevent exclusion; and third, its negative and far-reaching impact on social
processes. Ethnic divisions prevent progressive changes and exacerbate alienation amongst the general
public. The effects of ethnic division are most clearly to be seen in the process of return, as ethnic
minority groups remain one of the most easily recognizable socially excluded groups, largely due to very
poorly integrated processes of return to pre-war places of residence. This is not reflected only in limited
political participation and access to services, but also in alienation from ordinary social processes in the
areas where they live.2 While the other main excluded groups face similar forms of marginalisation, their
exclusion is not a direct result of the political divisions in Bosnian society. The Roma are one particularly
vulnerable group, as are persons with disabilities, the elderly, people living in rural areas, and the young.
When we look at our sample’s assessment of current economic conditions by ethnic majority area, in
terms of what both the ethnic majority and the ethnic minority samples in those areas thought in
November 2007 and November 2008, we find a reduction in the numbers who would describe current
conditions as bad in both sets of samples. In November 2008, current economic conditions were
1 According to data available in the reports of the economic planning directorate of the Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the National
Social Inclusion Strategy will focus on young people, the elderly, individuals with disabilities, the Roma, and the rural population, while also paying
attention to gender and ethnic aspects.
2 The National Human Development Report for 2007, Social Inclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina, UNDP, Sarajevo, 2007.
54 described as bad by 77.6% of Bosniak majority areas sample, 62.3% of the Serb majority areas sample,
and 35% of the Croat majority areas sample. This is an improvement on the results for November 2007,
Annual Report 2008 - Social Inclusion
when the figures were 84.9%, 72.1%, and 68% respectively (see Table I). The reason for this is the
relatively stable economic situation in late 2008, compared to late 2007, when prices were rising fast and
other economic indicators were deteriorating (for more see the section on income and social welfare).
The minority sample in Croat majority areas tends to take a more pessimistic view of the economy than
the majority, but even for them we find a tendency to be less pessimistic about the economy than a year
before. The minority samples in Serb and Bosniak majority areas, however, described the situation in
more positive terms than the majority samples on those territories, which is a reversal of how things
stood at the end of 2007.
Table I
Assessment of current economic situation in BiH (%)

Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08. Nov 07. Nov 08.
Total bad 84,9 77,6 68,0 35,0 72,1 62,3
Neither good nor bad 12,3 21,3 23,8 46,8 23,3 35,4
Total good 1,6 0,2 7,0 16,6 2,6 0,6
NA/DK 1,2 0,9 1,2 1,6 2,0 1,6
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Minority population in BMA Minority population in CMA Minority population in SMA
Total bad 89,1 71,6 50,8 47,3 73,8 55,4
Total good 2,4 2,0 11,2 1,8 3,1
NA/DK 6,1 0,8 0,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
In November 2008, 16.6% of the sample described current economic circumstances as good,
compared to 0.2% in Bosniak majority areas and 0.6% in Serb majority areas. When we consider the
minority samples in the various areas, however, we find that 2.4% in Bosniak majority areas, 11.2% in
Croat majority areas, and 3.1% in Serb majority areas were willing to describe circumstances as good.
If we take as our criterion household economic status and categorise our sample in terms of place of
residence, we find that the percenta-
ges who consider their household Graph 1 Percentage of minority sample in each of majority areas
circumstances to be below average have who think that the economic situation in BiH is bad
fallen in both rural and urban areas
between November 2007 and Novem-
ber 2008 (see Table XIa in annex and the
following graph).
Economic indicators suggest that
household income and general
economic conditions are considerably
worse in rural than in urban areas. Our
surveys confirm this.3 The unclear
employment status of people working
in agriculture, poor access to basic
institutions and social infrastructure,
inadequate health care and pension
and disability insurance policy for
3 See section on incomes and social welfare.

agricultural workers, and low levels of participation in local decision-making related to the development 55
of rural areas have all contributed to increasing the incidence of social exclusion in rural areas.4

When we look at the population in terms of age group, we find evidence of a number of different
forms of social exclusion affecting young people, who are the most vulnerable group when it comes to
employment, as is clearly shown by the Labour Force Survey, which indicated that youth unemployment
(people from 15 to 25 years of age) was twice as high as the overall rate. This is clearly one of the main
reasons young people (in this case 18 to 35 year olds) are so willing to emigrate (for more see following
graph). While there has been a reduction between November 2007 and November 2008 in the
percentage of our sample who said they would emigrate, it is worth noting that this reduction is least
amongst the young. The social exclusion of the young is a particular problem in rural areas and small
municipalities, which do not have the resources or the institutional support mechanisms to ensure that
young people continue their education.
Graph 2 Self-assessment of household economic
At the same time, our quarterly opinion polls
status(%)
show that the over 50s are in a worse position than
the younger age cohorts when it comes to income
levels. This group includes a lot of pensioners, as
well as individuals who lost their jobs during
privatisation and the restructuring of the large
industrial corporations, along with any hope of
finding new employment due to their declining
physical abilities and their obsolete skill sets. The
lack of social networks for dealing with problems of
social exclusion in all areas of life (education, health
care, employment, and social welfare) ensures that
many people in the country may be assigned to
categories requiring social inclusion.
The situation is little different when we look at
our results in terms of gender. The quarterly reports
indicate that women have a lower self assessment of economic status and report lower monetary income
(household) than men do (see income and social welfare section). There is also gender discrimination at
work, as some employers are unwilling to meet their legal obligations regarding maternity leave.
Table IX
Possession of consumer durables
Majority in BMA Majority in CMA Majority in SMA

Telephone 83,3 85,7 75,1 73,4 63,8 71,4
Mobile phone 64,3 74,6 61,2 73,1 64,9 65,2
Car 47,9 49,2 61,4 68,2 48,7 54,6
Minority in BMA Minority in CMA Minority in SMA
Telephone 84,5 80,5 76,5 62,5 63,8 51,2
Mobile phone 60,5 47,6 56,3 53,1 64,9 62,2
Car 28,3 31,3 54,3 36,9 48,7 24,5
Finally, we must admit that our surveys do not allow us to access the attitudes or opinions of two
socially excluded groups, namely the Roma and persons with disabilities. It is worth noting that the
authorities have recognised the problems faced by these categories of the population and are tackling
them through the development of a National Disability Policy, passed by the Council of Ministers in June
4 According to the 2007 National Human Development Report, the incidence of extreme social in exclusion is 19% higher in rural areas than in urban
ones.
5 Some municipalities do have development strategies based on human rights (the RMET approach).
56 2008, and a National Strategy for the Inclusion of the Roma, which was passed as long ago as 2005. It is
an unfortunate and worrying habit of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina that they adopt such
documents (policy, strategy, plans, etc) over easily, without planning or allocating resources for their
implementation. A glance at the state and entity level budgets for 2009 shows that there has been no
increased allocation for the implementation of these strategic documents. In this context one must also
make mention of the Social Inclusion strategy Document. Although there has been talk for more than a
year of its preparation, the public is still very poorly informed about it and the time frame within which it
is to be adopted. What is known is that the document will serve efforts to remove key causes of exclusion
amongst the most vulnerable groups, including the elderly, the young, individuals with disabilities, the
displaced, and the Roma. Such causes include poverty, unemployment, poor access to health care and
education, and attention to gender and ethnic issues.
2. Minority and majority samples share same views on the

economy
When we look at expectations regarding prices, our surveys indicate that in late 2008 a large section
of the public still expected prices to rise (Table II). If we compare the data from November 2008 with the
data for November 2007, we notice that there has been a reduction, however, in that percentage for both
the majority and minority samples in all three majority areas. As for the percentage who expect prices to
fall, comparing the data for late 2008 and late 2007 shows an increase in Croat and Serb majority areas,
but a decrease in Bosniak majority areas. One should note that the views of the minority samples in all
three majority areas are in line with those of the majority samples.
Table II
Expect prices over next six months to…. (%)

Fall 6,1 6,0 7,8 13,0 7,5 8,9
Rise 90,0 78,8 87,9 75,4 83,9 74,9
Stay the same 1,8 10,2 3,1 5,9 6,6 11,7
NA/DK 2,1 5,1 1,3 5,7 2,0 4,5
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Fall 3,7 2,0 3,8 22,9 2,5 13,6
Rise 92,5 88,4 87,2 65,5 85,7 75,4
Stay the same 8,9 5,6 8,5 6,3 5,7
NA/DK 3,9 0,8 3,4 3,1 5,5 5,3
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
In late 2008, some 78.8% of the sample in Bosniak majority areas, 75.4% in Croat majority areas, and
74.9% in Serb majority areas said they expected prices to rise. Our surveys continue to suggest that the
minority sample in Bosniak majority areas is more pessimistic regarding price rises than the majority --
88.4% expect price rises. This compares to 75.4% of the minority sample in Serb majority areas and 65.5%
of the minority sample in Croat majority areas.
Our sample’s views on the prospect of household income increasing in future are in line with the results
already presented regarding their assessment of current economic conditions. Thus, in November 2008, we
find that the sample in Croat majority areas was most likely to expect positive change (33.3%). This
compares to 25.6% in Serb majority areas and 14.6% in Bosniak majority areas. Comparing this data with
the data from November 2007, we find that there has been an increase in Croat majority areas in the
percentage who expect household income to increase, but a reduction in Bosniak majority areas. Similar
patterns are present for the minority samples in the various ethnic majority areas. Comparison of the results
for late 2007 and late 2008 related to the percentages who expect household income to fall shows a
moderate increase in Croat majority areas as well as a moderate increase for the minority samples in Bosniak 57
and Serb majority areas (see Table III in annex). It would appear that the impact of the coming crisis has not

yet been felt by these groups and they do not expect it to have a significant impact on their income.
When it comes to their expectations regarding ability to save, people in Bosnia and Herzegovina do
appear to be more pessimistic in late 2008 than they were in late 2007, which is reasonable given the
general assessment of the country's economic prospects. Comparing the attitudes of the various minority
and majority ethnic samples for November 2007 and November 2008, however, we find that the percentage
of the minority samples in the various ethnic majority areas who expect to save has increased, as has the
Croat majority areas sample percentage. There has, by contrast, been a reduction in the percentage of the
overall samples in Bosniak and Serb majority area who expect to be able to save. In November 2008, it was
members of the Croat ethnic group in Croat majority areas who showed the greatest optimism over their
potential to save (15.1%), while projections were least good in Bosniak majority areas (only 4.1% of the
majority sample). The percentage in Serb majority areas was 7.5%.
Table III
Expect household income over next six months to …. (%)

Fall 19,8 13,6 16,3 16,6 14,4 8,9
Rise 15,1 14,6 20,1 33,3 20,5 25,6
Stay the same 56,0 67,7 58,9 43,4 58,7 60,6
NA/DK 9,2 4,1 4,7 6,8 6,3 4,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Fall 8,1 11,7 12,8 6,2 5,3 10,0
Rise 5,3 3,8 25,8 37,4 10,5 19,6
Stay the same 72,7 80,0 48,3 55,2 83,3 61,8
NA/DK 13,9 4,5 13,1 1,2 0,9 8,7
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Finally we must point out that the minority samples in the various majority ethnic areas do actually find
themselves economically worse-off than the majority samples in those areas. This can be seen most easily
from reported levels of household income and possession of consumer durables. Thus, if we look at the
number of low-income households (monthly income of less than 500 KM) through 2008, we find that the
percentage was consistently higher for the minority sample than for the general population in the various
majority areas (see table XIII). An exception to this rule was the first quarter of 2008 (March 2008) in Croat
majority areas, when there were fewer minority sample than majority sample low income households.
The picture of minority deprivation relative to the majority population is confirmed when we look at the
data on possession of consumer durables. In November 2008, we find that a smaller percentage of the
minority sample were in possession of mobile phones, just as they were less likely to have a landline
connection or a car (see Table IX). The reasons are no doubt to be sought in the difficulties facing returnees
Table IIIa

Total fall 19,8 13,6 16,3 16,6 14,4 8,9
Total increase 15,1 14,6 20,1 33,3 20,5 25,6
No change 56,0 67,7 58,9 43,4 58,7 60,6
DK/NA 9,2 4,1 4,7 6,8 6,3 4,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
58 Table IV
Expect to save over next half year (%)

Yes 11,3 4,1 14,0 15,1 12,8 7,5
No 83,8 91,5 79,0 75,1 85,1 89,1
NA/DK 4,8 4,3 7,1 9,9 2,2 3,4
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Yes 1,7 4,2 3,0 8,5 5,3 8,8
No 92,7 92,6 89,4 89,2 92,2 89,2
NA/DK 5,6 3,2 7,6 2,3 2,5 2,0
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
attempting to reintegrate, the social ostracism they are subjected to by members of the majority population,
and the greater difficulties they face finding employment or sources of income.
3. Pessimism over the political situation

Political events during 2008 significantly affected the sample’s views regarding the direction political life
has taken (see Table Va). In 2008, there was a clear deterioration of political life, following attempts to change
the rulebook of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Parliamentary Assembly in order to abolish entity-based voting.
The situation was made worse by the declaration of independence by Kosovo, which led to organized protests
and demonstrations in the Republika Srpska, as well as a number of calls for a referendum on secession.
These events made a strong impression on public opinion in Bosniak majority areas, where as many as
78.8% of the sample said they thought the political situation was set to deteriorate. The minority sample in
Bosniak majority areas was even more pessimistic, with 88.3% expecting deterioration. During the second
quarter of 2008, the situation calmed down somewhat, particularly following the signing of the SAA with the
European Union. This positive trend, however, was not evident in the opinion of the minority samples in
Croat and Serb majority areas. There was an increase during the third quarter in the number of pessimists
in both Bosniak and Croat majority areas, as well as amongst the minority samples in Bosniak and Serb
majority areas. The reasons for this no doubt lie with the holding of local elections and the election
campaign itself, which was considered to be particularly negative. The end of the year (the fourth quarter)
again provided reason for concern over the worsening political situation in Bosniak and Serb majority areas,
particularly following the signing of the Prud agreement by the leaders of three political parties (the SDA,
the SNSD, and the HDZ BiH). While the agreement was welcomed by the international community, it proved
rather controversial on the domestic political scene, dividing the parties into those for and those against it.
Table V
Think political situation in BiH is…. (%)

Deteriorating 79,4 79,7 80,2 52,9 82,4 50,3
Improving 15,1 13,5 11,5 24,7 12,1 34,6
NA/DK 5,5 6,8 8,3 22,4 5,5 15,1
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Deteriorating 90,7 82,1 60,3 47,4 82,5 41,2
Improving 4,7 14,7 19,1 48,2 9,5 51,7
NA/DK 4,6 3,1 20,6 4,4 8,1 7,1
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table Va 59
Expect political situation to deteriorate (%)

Majority sample Minority sample Majority sample Minority sample Majority sample Minority sample
Nov. 79,7 82,1 52,9 47,4 50,3 41,2
Sept. 57,2 60,6 61,5 64,5 42,5 43,2
Jun. 54,4 55,6 57,5 71,5 42,5 39,2
Mar. 78,8 88,3 57,7 65,7 57,3 37,6
According to the November 2008 survey, 79.7% of the Bosniak majority areas sample, 57.9% of the
Croat majority areas sample, and 50.3% of the Serb majority areas sample said they expected political life
to deteriorate further over the coming months. Moreover, the minority sample in Bosniak majority areas
were the most pessimistic, with the greatest percentage saying they expected political conditions to
deteriorate (82.1%), followed by the minority sample in Croat majority areas. Least pessimistic were the
minority sample in Serb majority areas (41.2%).
4. Ethnic identity and citizenship in conflict for most

Research into ethnic identity and citizenship continues to indicate very large differences of opinion and
attitude between different sectors of the public in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Thus, for the past number of
years, our surveys have found the levels of pride in belonging to a given ethnic group or people to be
relatively stable and that the percentage of the three constitutive peoples who express very considerable
pride in their ethnic identity has actually increased. For example, comparing the data for 2008 with data for
2004, we find that the percentage of the sample who are very proud of their ethnic identity has increased
in all three ethnic groups, with the largest increase in the Serb ethnic group.6 A similar pattern is found if one
looks at the figures for the minority samples of each of the majority areas, and the trend is confirmed if one
simply compares the data from November 2008 with the data for November 2007 (see Table VI).
In late 2008, Bosniaks were the majority sample most likely to express pride in their ethnicity (84.7%).
A slightly smaller percentage of Croats (80.7%) and Serbs (79.3%) also expressed strong pride in their
Table VI
Pride in ethnic identity (%)

Very proud 86,4 84,7 81,4 80,7 82,0 79,3
Somewhat 10,4 8,6 13,6 10,2 12,7 13,7
Not much 2,1 3,7 2,7 2,3 3,3 2,5
Not at all 0,3 0,9 0,5 1,9
Not important 1,2 1,1 1,3 6,0 2,0 2,2
DK/Can't decide 1,1 0,2
NA/DK 0,5 0,1 0,3 0,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Very proud 82,8 90,9 72,8 87,9 74,1 87,8
Somewhat 8,0 4,9 4,5 3,1 14,6 5,0
Not much 1,0 2,7 6,0 1,0
Not at all 5,0 0,6
Not important 2,0 0,7 13,8 6,0 10,3 6,4
NA/DK 1,3 1,8 2,1 0,9 0,7
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
6 For more on this see the EWS quarterly reports from 2004 and 2008 at www.undp.ba
60 ethnicity. When we look at the various ethnic minority samples on the ethnic majority areas, we find an
even higher percentage expressing pride in their ethnic identity: 90.9% of the minority sample on Bosniak
majority areas, 87.9% of the minority sample in Croat majority areas, and 87.8% in Serb majority areas said
they were very proud of belonging to their ethnic group. This minority sample opinion suggests that a
relatively stable security situation (the Security Stability Index was 88 in November 2008) and fairly good
ethnic relations (the Ethnic Stability Index was 77) are key factors in the development of ethnic pride
amongst the minority samples. The preceding period, during which the local election campaign took place,
was not marred by problems of an ethnic nature, even though there was a certain polarisation of majority
opinion on the various majority areas on the basis of particular political programmes.
When we turn to consider the sample’s attitudes to citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina during 2008,
we continue to find that it is only amongst Bosniaks that there is a good fit between ethnic identity and
citizenship, as both the Croat and Serb samples display rather lower levels of identification with the state
(Table VII). Identification with the state based upon citizenship of Bosnia and Herzegovina and identity
based on belonging to an ethnic group are at much the same level for Bosniaks, but not for Serbs and Croats
who clearly feel considerably less pride in their citizenship than in their ethnic identity.
It is therefore worth noting, in comparing the results for late 2008 with those for late 2007, that there
has been an increase in the percentage of both the majority and minority ethnic samples on both Serb and
Croat majority areas who express strong degrees of pride in being citizens of this country. Of course, this
still means that only 32.5% of the Croat majority areas sample and 23.7% of the Serb majority areas sample
said they felt a strong degree of pride in being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to our
November 2008 poll. This situation is unlikely to be remedied, particularly given that citizens of Bosnia and
Herzegovina are not being offered the same advantages as citizens of Croatia or, if recent announcements
by Brussels are to be trusted, as Serbian citizens will soon be offered. We have in mind the fact that most
Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina are also citizens of Croatia and can use their travel documents to travel
freely throughout Western Europe without a visa and it would seem that Brussels intends offering the same
facility to citizens of Serbia.
Looking at our poll results, there are clear differences between the ethnic groups in their attitudes
regarding reducing or increasing the High Representative’s powers. In late November 2008, 10.9% of the
Bosniak majority area sample, 28.9% of the Croat majority areas sample, and as many as 71.9% of the Serb
majority areas sample were of the opinion that the High Representative’s powers should be reduced. It is
interesting to note that there was a reduction between November 2007 and November 2008 in the overall
percentage who think the High Representative’s powers should be reduced. The reduction was steepest in
Croat majority areas and for the minority samples in Bosniak and Serb majority areas. The percentage who
think that the High Representative’s powers should be increased was down in both Croat and Serb majority
areas, as well as amongst the minority samples in Bosniak and Croat majority areas (see Table VIII).
Finally, when we come to confidence in the judicial system, we find that the Bosniak majority area group
is the one most likely to express approval (57.75%), followed by the Serb and then the Croat majority area
groups (57.30% and 32.02% respectively), according to our November 2008 poll. It is worth noting that the
group most likely to express strong agreement with the idea that the legal system could be counted on to
support or uphold their contractual and ownership rights was the minority sample in Serb majority areas
(23.88%). One may also say, on the basis of our November 2008 results, that the minority sample in Serb
majority areas also expressed the highest degree of confidence in the legal system (66.2%). For more, see
Table X in annex.
61
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
VII ETHNIC RELATIONS

1. The Ethnic Stability Index
2. Exploitation of ethnic divisions in political life continues
3. Reported discrimination falls over year as a whole
4. Support for refugee return recovers
5. Measures of social distance between ethnic groups improve
6. Separatism and Nationalism
1. The Ethnic Stability Index

At 77 points, the Ethnic Stability Index was at a relatively high level at the end of this year compared
to the 72 points it ended last year with. The level of the index was highest during the middle of the year,
after the signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, falling in the final quarter following the
elections. As may be seen from the following graph, which shows the annual averages and the trendline
for the Ethnic Stability Index since the project began, the index began at 71 in 2000 and grew steadily over
the next two to four years, since when it has fluctuated within a three point band, but with a generally
upward trend, suggesting that time and distance from the war are having an impact. This period of
fluctuation in the Ethnic Stability Index corresponds to a similar period of fluctuation in the political,
economic, and social stability indices, the main differences in their cases it was preceded by a steep fall.
The Ethnic Stability Index is clearly responding to the same political and economic events, like the
difficulties over constitutional negotiations, police and other reforms, the independence of Kosovo, the
Stabilization and Association Agreement, the rise in the use of radical rhetoric in politics, the local
elections in late 2008, rising prices in 2007 and early 2008, and so forth, but they have not yet managed
to bring about a major decline in its underlying value.
62 2. Exploitation of ethnic divisions in political life continues
The beginning of the year saw less stable political and security conditions in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Annual Report 2008 - Ethnic Relations
with very divided public reaction to Kosovo's declaration of independence. Protests were held on the
streets of Banja Luka and other major towns of the Republika Srpska, while the RS National Assembly
passed a resolution stating that it refused to recognize the declaration. In the Federation, the political
establishment welcome the declaration of independence. RS politicians began to speculate openly again
on holding a secession referendum. The turbulent political relations were calmed following the decision
by the Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency not to recognise Kosovo as an independent state for the
foreseeable future.
The year will be remembered for the signing and ratification of the Stabilisation and Association
Agreement with the European Union. This was preceded, however, by considerable debate and
disagreement between the main political parties regarding the passage of a police reform bill. The
European Union made signing the SAA conditional upon the passage of the legislation. After considerable
political compromise, the agreement was signed on 16 June.
This year also saw the coming into force of the temporary Stabilisation and Association Agreement
and implementation of the trade agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union.
In mid-July, the country was received into the Union of Mediterranean Countries.
Disagreement between politicians over how to implement the agreed census in Bosnia and
Herzegovina was further complicated by the position of international community representatives that
there was no need to ask for data on ethnic or religious identity. This position was poorly received in the
Republika Srpska, whose Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, announced that the entity would organise its
own census in 2011, if one were not agreed at the level of the country as a whole.
In the middle of the year, the RS Prime Minister announced the entity's exit from the Bosnian and
Herzegovinian electricity transmission company, causing concern amongst the public and the
international community. The Peace Implementation Council met and called on the RS government to
void the Prime Minister’s decision, a call they soon complied with.
The year also saw an election campaign, which like previous election campaigns was marked by the
use of nationalist rhetoric deployed to mobilise the electorate. The run-up to the elections and the
elections themselves, which were held on 5 October 2008, took place without major problem or incident.
As in previous cases, the election campaign served its purpose, raising ethnic tensions amongst the public
and proving yet again how deep divisions in this country run. The turnout was 55%.
The House of Representatives and the House of Peoples of the Bosnian parliament ratified the
Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union on 22 October 2008. The following
day, the European Parliament in Brussels passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina warning political
leaders in the country that unless there was major change the country has nothing to expect of the
European Union.
Because the Bosnian Presidency failed to agree a common platform for the participation of the state-
level delegation at the UN General Assembly, the Presidency Chair, Haris Silajdžić, followed his own line in
front of the General Assembly, using his speech to treat the behaviour of the governing structures in the
Republika Srpska. He repeated this speech in front of the Council of Europe, after which the Council of
Europe passed a resolution. This resolution put additional strain on political relations between Banja Luka
and Sarajevo. RS politicians were unanimous in the view that his speech was an invitation to further division.
A further important event of the year was the declaration by the High Representative, Miroslav
Lajcak, that the Office of the High Representative would remain in 2009, though it later emerged that he
himself would no longer serve as High Representative.
In the small town of Prud, on 8 November, three party leaders, from the SDA, the SNSD, and the HDZ,
reached agreement on further reforms in the country. They focused on constitutional reforms, state
property, the census, and the status of Brčko district. The agreement was met with a range of reactions
by the various political parties in the country.
The final act of the RS government in 2008 sent shock waves through international and local political
circles. The government in Banja Luka initiated criminal proceedings against a representative of the
international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The High Representative made a statement to the 63
effect that raising such indictments constituted a direct threat to the international community.

3. Reported discrimination falls over year as a whole
Though 2008, an increasing percentage of the urban sample said they had not suffered harassment
on the basis of their ethnicity, up from 88.7% in November 2007 to 96% in November this year. There was
also a significant decrease in the percentage of the urban sample who said that they had experienced
such harassment at least once, down from 5.8% in November 2007 to 1.8% in November 2008. In rural
areas, the situation was reversed, with a minor reduction in the percentage who said they had never been
suffered harassment based on their ethnicity, down from 96.5% in late 2007 to 94.5% at the end of 2008.
The percentage who said they had never had any such experience was up for men and women over the
year. In November 2008, 94.7% of men and 95.5% of women said they had never had such an experience.
This compares to 91.8% of men and 94.5% of women in November the previous year (Table Ia).
Table IIa Have you or any of your household been the victim fo verbal harassment or physical attack during
the past year solely on the grounds of your ethnicity?
Gender
Urban Rural Male Female
Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
No - never 88,7 93,6 94,7 96,0 96,5 95,1 96,7 94,5 91,8 94,8 94,5 94,7 94,5 94,1 97,2 95,5
Yes - once 5,8 1,3 1,0 1,8 1,9 1,5 0,8 1,2 4,0 1,5 1,1 1,9 3,1 1,4 0,7 1,1
Yes - more than once 3,1 1,3 1,8 1,3 1,1 1,1 0,9 1,6 2,4 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,5 0,9 1,0 1,4
Yes - frequently 1,8 1,9 0,6 0,4 0,4 1,8 0,8 1,7 1,4 1,1 1,3 1,3 0,7 2,6 0,1 1,0
DK/NA 0,6 1,8 2,0 0,6 0,1 0,5 0,8 0,9 0,4 1,2 1,6 0,5 0,2 0,9 1,0 1,0
TOTAL 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Taking age as our criterion, we find that the oldest age-group were least likely to have experienced
frequent harassment on the basis of ethnicity, as was the case the previous year. Thus, 0.4% of the over
50s said they had suffered frequent harassment on ethnic grounds in November 2008, compared to 1.2%
of the middle age group and 1.8% of the younger age group (Table Ib).
Our surveys also show an increase in the percentages of both the majority and minority samples in
Bosniak majority areas who had not suffered such harassment. The majority sample percentage was up
from 88.5% last November to 93.2% in November of 2008, while the minority sample percentage was up
from 92.2% to 95.5%. There was a minor reduction in the percentage of the Croat majority areas minority
sample who gave the same answer, from the 90.4% last year to 89.9% this November. The majority sample
percentage went up from 92% to 94% over the same period. In Serb majority areas, there was a negative
fall in the percentages of both majority and minority sample who said they had never suffered such
discrimination. Thus, in November 2008 the majority sample percentage was 98.5%, while the minority
sample percentage was 97.3% (down from 97.5% down to 97.5% and 95.8%, respectively) (Table Ic).
4. Support for refugee return recovers

There was an increase against last year's relatively low percentage of both the urban and rural samples
entirely or basically in agreement that people not of the local majority should return to their prewar homes
in the community (i.e. minority return). The percentage of the urban sample was 90% in November 2008,
up from 83.4% a year before. The rural sample percentage was up from 84.9% to 87.9%. This year, women
were more likely to support the idea than men (89.9% compared to 88.1%), which was not the case the
previous year. It is worth noting that the percentage of women who actively disagree with minority return
fell from 11.8% in November 2007 to 6.9% in November 2008 (Table II a).
There was an increase during the final quarter of 2008 in the percentage of all age groups who support
minority return. The greatest increase was for the youngest age group, up from 83.1% to 90.5% (Table II b).
64 Comparing the polls for the last quarters of 2007 and 2008, we find that Croats in Croat majority areas
are least supportive of minority return. In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage in
complete or general agreement with minority return was higher than a year ago, up from 87.4% to 92.1%.
The minority sample percentage was also up on last year, from 87.9% to 94.7%. The percentages of both
the majority and minority samples in Serb majority areas who support minority return was up in the final
quarter of 2008, at 87.6% and 90.8% respectively (Table II c).
5. Measures of social distance between ethnic groups improve

There was a reduction in the percentage of the sample in Croat majority areas entirely or generally happy
to live in the same country as Bosniaks, compared to the end of last year (down from 85.7% in November
2007 to 81.6% in November 2008). The percentage who consider it acceptable to have a Bosniak neighbour
was down from 80.5% to 76.7%. The percentage willing to accept co-schooling with Bosniak children was by
contrast up on last year (from 21% to 24.6%). The percentage of the Croat majority areas sample who find it
acceptable that a family member marry a Bosniak was down from 31.6% to 28.1% (Table IV).
In Serb majority areas, there was a rise over the end of last year in the percentage of the sample willing
to live in the same country as Bosniaks: from 67% in November 2007 to 76% in November 2008. There was
also an increase in the percentage happy to have a Bosniak neighbour, up from 65% to 74.3%. The
percentage willing to accept co-schooling with Bosniak children fluctuated over the year, rising in the first
quarter but falling again in the second, to recover by the end of the year, when it stood at 74.1%. There was
also an increase in the percentage of the Serb majority areas sample for whom intermarriage with a Bosniak
is acceptable, up from 26.5% in November 2007 to 35.1% in November 2008 (Table IV). The percentage of
the Bosniak majority areas sample happy to live in the same country as Croats was down from 97.9% in
November 2007 to 95.3% at the end of 2008. There was also a gradual decline in the percentage of the
sample entirely or generally happy to see their children go to the same school as Croat children. This
percentage was down from 97.3% in November 2007 to 94.8% in November 2008. The percentage willing
to see a member of their family marry a Croat was also down on last year (from 50.8% to 33.2%) (Table V).
In Serb majority areas, the percentage entirely or generally willing to live in the same country as Croats
was up (from 69.4% in November 2007 to 77.6% in November 2008). There was a positive reduction in the
percentage who consider it unacceptable to have a Croat neighbour (down from 28.7% to 21.7% over the
year). There was also a reduction in the percentage of the Serb majority areas sample entirely or generally
happy to see their children go to the same school as Croat children, from 28.5% at the end of last year to
22.8% at the end of this year.
The percentage happy to see a member of their family marry a Bosniak also increased from 33.2% to
39.9% (Table V).
There was a reduction in the percentage of the sample in Bosniak majority areas who find it entirely
acceptable to live in the same country as Serbs (92.6%), just as there was in the percentage of the Croat
sample, down from 83% to 79.7% (Table V).
Compared to the end of last year, there was a reduction in the percentage of the Bosniak majority
areas sample entirely or generally happy to live in the same country as Serbs (down from 95.9% to 92.9%),
as there was a reduction in the percentage happy to see their children go to the same school (down from
Table VIIa
Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work?
Gender
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Yes 36,0 34,6 36,1 31,7 34,8 34,5 29,6 33,6 36,7 38,0 37,1 34,7 34,0 31,2 27,9 31,0
No 57,4 50,5 52,5 60,9 55,4 54,5 60,4 56,4 55,3 47,8 53,5 57,0 57,2 57,6 60,4 59,6
DK/NA 6,6 14,9 11,4 7,4 9,8 11,0 10,0 10,0 8,0 14,3 9,4 8,3 8,8 11,2 11,7 9,5
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
95.1% to 92.9%). It is worth noting that the Croat majority areas sample was generally less happy to coexist 65
with Serbs, except for one aspect -- the percentage of Croats happy to see a member of their family marry

a Serb increased from 22% to 24.6% (Table VI).
There was an increase in the percentage of the urban sample willing to move to another town, where
they would not belong to the majority ethnicity, in order to get a better job: down from 36% in the last
quarter of 2007 to 31.7% in the last quarter of 2008. There was a similar reduction for the rural sample,
down from 34.8% to 33.6%. We also find that men are more willing to consider such a move than women
(34% compared to 31%) (Table VII a).
When we come to age group, we find that only the youngest age group show an increase in willingness
to move to another city, where they would be in the minority: up from 48% in November 2007 to 49.9% in
November 2008. The percentages for the other two age groups are down compared to last year (Table VII b).
In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample was less willing to make such a move than a year ago,
down from 43.1% to 39.4%. In Croat majority areas, there was a similar reduction from 36% to 32.1%.
There was a less clear reduction in the Serb majority areas, down from 25.4% of the majority sample to
25.1% (Table VII c).
Table VIIc
Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work?
Area BMA CMA SMA

Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Yes 43,1 55,2 36,7 45,6 39,0 42,9 39,4 39,0 36,0 39,5 42,8 36,8 30,9 15,9 32,1 45,3 25,4 35,8 29,0 57,1 26,7 43,3 25,1 28,8
No 49,0 27,3 52,3 45,6 53,2 48,6 53,9 58,8 55,0 46,5 42,6 51,9 58,3 65,2 51,8 44,9 65,5 47,6 56,4 34,8 59,2 38,5 65,1 58,9
DK/NA 7,9 17,5 11,0 8,8 7,9 8,5 6,8 2,2 9,0 14,0 14,6 11,3 10,9 18,9 16,1 9,8 9,1 16,6 14,5 8,1 14,1 18,2 9,8 12,3
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
6. Separatism and Nationalism

The percentage of the sample expressing a strong degree of pride in their ethnic identity was down on
last year in urban areas, from 82.6% in November 2007 to 81% in November 2008. There was a similar
reduction in rural areas, from 85% to 83.3%. While last year women were considerably more likely to
express such pride than men, this year there is little difference between the sexes (men 82.2% and women
82.5%) (Table VIII a).
The two older age groups expressed greater levels of ethnic pride than previously, while the younger
age group was less likely to express such pride than last year (down from 83.2% to 80.7%) (Table VIII b).
The percentage of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas expressing a strong degree of ethnic
pride was down slightly on last year, from 86.4% to 84.7%. The minority sample percentage was up. The
Table VIIIb
How proud are you of your ethnicity?
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Very 83,2 81,6 80,0 80,7 82,4 81,8 84,3 84,9 85,8 81,3 84,5 82,2
Somewhat 13,6 11,1 13,8 13,9 13,3 12,9 13,0 8,2 8,4 12,6 8,8 9,2
Not very 2,4 3,1 4,1 3,2 2,0 1,7 1,7 3,6 3,5 3,0 3,0 2,3
Not all 0,1 0,5 0,0 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,1 1,0 0,4 1,3 1,2 1,6
It's not important 0,7 2,6 1,3 1,3 2,1 3,2 0,8 2,3 1,8 1,3 1,5 2,8
DK 0,4 0,5 0,3 0,4 1,1
NA 0,0 1,2 0,3 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,7 0,8
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
66 situation in Croat majority areas was similar, with a reduction in the majority sample percentage and an
increase in the minority sample percentage. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage
expressing a strong degree of pride in their ethnic identity was down from 82% to 79.3%, while the
minority sample percentage was up rather more considerably, from 74.1% 84.8% (Table VIII c).
Turning to pride in being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, we find an increase in the percentage of
the rural sample expressing a strong degree of pride (up from 50.6% to 54.4%), but a reduction in the urban
sample (from 52.9% to 51.5%). The percentage of the female sample was up, from 49.4% 52.6%, while
there was little change in the percentage of men expressing such pride (Table IX a).
There was a significant reduction in the percentage of the Bosniak majority areas sample expressing
pride in their citizenship, down from 86.3% to 80.7% over the year. The minority sample percentage was
up from 78.4% to 87%. The majority sample percentage in Croat majority areas was also up, albeit still in
the low 30s. The minority sample percentage in Croat majority areas was up considerably, from 49.9% to
75.4%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage expressing such pride was 23.7%, while the
minority sample percentage was 72.9% (Table IX c).
There was a significant reduction in the percentage of the overall sample who said withdrawal by the
European Union security forces would increase the likelihood of renewed conflict in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. This held for all categories. For example, in urban areas the percentage fell from 26.2% to
21.9%, while it fell from 33.3% to 23.8% in rural areas, and from 32.3% 23.9% for men (Table X a).
When we look at our age groups, we find that the middle age group is most likely to believe that a
withdrawal of international forces would increase the likelihood of war, currently at 24.8% (Table X b).
In Bosniak majority areas, the percentage of both the majority and minority sample who share this
pessimistic view fell, from 44.7% to 29.5% for the majority sample and from 33.1% to 13.9% for the
minority sample. The majority sample percentage in Croat majority areas was down from 21.3% to 18.6%,
while the minority sample percentage was down from 33.1% to 27.2%. Only in Serb majority areas did the
percentage increase, up from 15.3% to 17.8% for the majority and from 25.4% to 27% for the minority
sample (Table X c).
The percentage of the sample who felt that the religious communities have a major impact on politics
and political life in Bosnia was up in urban areas, from 27.2% to 31.1% over the year. There was a similar
increase in rural areas, up from 25.6% to 28.1%. Men and women are equally likely to hold this opinion,
at 29.5% and 29.3% respectively (Table XII a).
In Bosniak majority areas, there was an increase in the percentage who feel that the religious communities
have a strong impact on politics, with the majority sample percentage rising from 33.2% last year to 45.6% this
November. There was also an increase in the minority sample percentage in Bosniak majority areas.
In Croat majority areas, there was an increase in both the minority and majority sample percentages
who share this view. Only in Serb majority areas did this percentage fall compared to last year, down from
Table XIIa
How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics?
Gender
Nov 2007Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
None 9,0 11,2 11,4 11,2 11,6 14,7 18,4 15,9 10,3 14,2 14,2 14,7 10,7 12,2 16,5 13,1
Little 19,3 20,3 17,8 19,6 21,5 24,3 24,5 20,8 18,9 22,4 23,9 21,4 22,1 22,8 19,4 19,2
A certain amount 37,7 30,0 30,5 32,9 33,5 30,5 28,3 27,3 34,5 29,3 26,0 28,9 36,1 31,2 32,3 30,5
A lot 27,2 26,2 32,9 31,1 25,6 20,0 23,1 28,1 31,2 26,4 30,9 29,5 21,6 19,0 23,8 29,3
DK/NA 6,8 12,3 7,3 5,2 7,8 10,6 5,8 7,8 5,1 7,7 5,0 5,5 9,6 14,8 7,9 7,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Total LITTLE 28,3 31,5 29,3 30,7 33,1 39,0 42,8 36,7 29,2 36,6 38,1 36,2 32,7 35,0 36,0 32,3
Total MUCH 64,9 56,2 63,4 64,0 59,1 50,5 51,4 55,5 65,6 55,7 56,9 58,4 57,7 50,2 56,1 59,8
DK/NA 6,8 12,3 7,3 5,2 7,8 10,6 5,8 7,8 5,1 7,7 5,0 5,5 9,6 14,8 7,9 7,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table XIIIa 67
Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you
agree or disagree with this idea?

Gender
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
TOTAL DISAGREE 72,5 63,8 63,0 74,9 67,8 62,4 56,9 72,2 73,9 64,3 60,3 72,7 65,8 62,1 59,6 73,9
TOTAL AGREE 19,5 22,4 26,4 16,2 21,2 23,8 28,1 18,0 20,5 24,1 27,2 19,3 20,5 22,4 27,3 15,3
DK/NA 8,0 13,8 10,7 8,9 11,0 13,8 15,0 9,9 5,6 11,7 12,5 8,0 13,7 15,5 13,1 10,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
20.1% of the majority sample to 13%. There was an increase in the percentage of the minority sample
(Table XII c).
Both the urban and rural samples were less likely than previously to agree that parties with an explicit
ethnic orientation are best able to protect vital ethnic or national interests: down from 19.5% to 16.2% in
towns and from 21.2% to 18% in village areas. Support for this view has been declining steadily over the
last number of years (Table XIII a).
In Bosniak majority areas, there was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample who agreed
with this view, down from 8.6% to 8% over the year. The minority sample was also less likely to express
agreement with the claim, down from 10.9% in November 2007 to 5.1% in November 2008. By contrast,
the majority sample in Croat majority areas was more likely to agree with the statement than last year, up
from 39.6% to 45.7%. As was the minority sample in these areas, up from 21.5% to 32.6%. In Serb majority
areas, there was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample who thought ethnic parties are best
able to protect the vital interests of the ethnic group they represent, down from 27% to 20.5%, but an
increase in the percentage of the minority sample, up from 12.5% to 23.3% (Table XIII c).
69
ANNUAL

REPORT
2008
VIII PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

1. The Security Stability Index
2. Concern over public safety issues at beginning in the year fades as year goes on
3. Rates fall for most crimes, for most categories of the population
1. The Security Stability Index

From this year’s results, it would again appear that the security index is largely determined by the
public’s everyday experiences and their attitudes to questions like security of property, security of
movement in their local communities, and confidence in contact with local institutions responsible for
public safety and security. Thus, the murder of a teenager on a tram in Sarajevo at the beginning of the
year was followed by a decline in the index to its lowest measure to date. Towards the end of the year,
the index recovered to approximately its initial position. The elections had no direct impact on the index,
confirming that the public’s sense of safety is related to concrete events in their local communities. As
the following graph, with annual averages and the trendline for the Security Stability Index since 2000, the
index has remained within a fairly narrow 3 point band, between its initial high of 89 and its low of 86.5
in 2006, suggesting that there have been no major problems with public safety and security more
generally over the past 8 years. On the other hand, the trend has clearly been downward, with a
moderate recovery in 2007. As the discussion above makes clear the results for 2008 were mixed. It would
seem rash to rule out the possibility of further deterioration in this area, if longer term trends continue,
particularly given the increasing attention given to public safety related concerns in the media.
70
2. Concern over public safety issues at beginning in the year
fades as year goes on
Annual Report 2008 - Public and Personal Security
This year, security issues were at the centre of political life, inspiring a series of civil actions, the most
prominent being the escalation of juvenile delinquency in Sarajevo, which shocked the public.
In spite of the fact that the meeting of the six ruling party leaders in early February made clear that
there was no political consensus regarding police reform, by the middle of the month, the Council of
Ministers had passed a draft Police Coordination Bodies Bill and the Independent Police Supervisory
Bodies Bill. The bills were enacted by the BiH Parliament at the end of the month.
The public was shocked at the beginning of the year by a terrible crime involving the abuse and
murder of a 17-year old Denis Mrnjavac by a group of youths on public transport in Sarajevo.
Unprecedented public protests, involving thousands of people, were held to condemn the crime. After a
number of peaceful protests, at which the public expressed its disaffection with public safety, a further
meeting in front of the Cantonal government buildings in Sarajevo resulted in stones being thrown at the
building, for which the authorities blamed a number of non-governmental organisations. As the situation
became more complicated, regular Saturday demonstrations were held in Sarajevo calling for the
resignation of the cantonal Prime Minister Samir Silajdžić and the Mayor Semiha Borovac. In the
meantime, the authorities initiated a belated dialogue with the public on issues of security and public
safety and both cantonal and federal parliaments held extraordinary sessions to discuss to juvenile
delinquency and passing preventative strategies. The issue of security consequently became a matter of
political and social debate both in Sarajevo Canton and in the rest of the country.
After much political debate and with international committee support, the Parliamentary assembly
of Bosnia-Herzegovina passed on 11 April two draft laws related to police reform, meeting international
community criteria and filling the conditions for signature of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement
to go ahead.
At a NATO summit in April, it was announced that BiH could expect an invitation to join as early as
the following year (2009). An invitation was issued for closer talks.
In mid-May, the President of the Hague tribunal visited Bosnia-Herzegovina, when he announced that
the UN Security Council would be requested to defer closing the court until all indictees had been
arrested.
Talks on relaxing visa conditions followed immediately on the signing of SAA in June. The Bosnian
government was presented with a Roadmap, including tasks and guidelines as to what needed to be done
to make this possible.
The election campaign had no major impact on security, even though it did produce dirty
electioneering, mudslinging against political opponents, etc. The most disturbing event took place in
Doboj, where 17 SDS activists were taken into custody by the police on suspicion of vote buying.
In September, an event of considerable importance for public safety did take place, which succeeded
in presenting Bosnia-Herzegovina in a particularly bad light internationally. This was the poorly organised
and inadequate police protection provided to participants of the first queer festival in BiH. The result was
to send a clear message to the world that Bosnia and Herzegovina could not function properly as a state
and was unprepared to ensure the basic safety of its citizens, regardless of orientation. Even though
certain religious groups and sports fans had announced their intention in advance of lynching participants
in the event, this was not considered by the police sufficient cause to provide adequate resources to
prevent possible attacks. In spite of the police presence, a number of people were physically attacked and
the festival was discontinued.
At the end of September, Transparency International announced that BiH is the most corrupt country
in the region, ranking 93rd out of 180 countries worldwide.
Towards the end of the year, there were attacks on federal government buildings. Anonymous groups
expressed their dissatisfaction with economic and security conditions in the Federation by daubing the
government buildings with messages, breaking windows, and leaving messages to the effect that such
disturbances would continue.
71
3. Rates fall for most crimes, for most categories of the
population

Comparing the last quarters of 2008 and 2007, we find there was little change in the urban crime
rate. In certain categories, like car theft, there was no change at all (at 0.2%), while others like burglary at
home saw an insignificant increase (from 1.3% to 1.5%). The incidence of burglary at the workplace was
down from 0.8% to 0.2%. The incidence of burglary at home was also down in rural areas (to 0.5% from
0.9%), as was car theft (from 0.6% to 0.2%). The rate of pickpocketing rose from 0.7% to 1.4%. In rural
areas, the percentage reporting some form of extortion was down from 0.5% to 0.3%. Men were more
likely to report burglaries or pickpocketing than women. There was no change in the percentage of men
reporting car theft (0.3%), while there was a decrease amongst women from 0.5% to 0.2% (Table I a).
Both younger age groups reported a reduction compared to late 2007 in the incidence of burglary at
home, (from 0.6% to 0.2% for the youngest, and from 0.1% to 0.4% for the middle-aged), while the oldest
age-group reported an increase, from 0.4% to 1.7% (Table I b).
In Bosniak majority areas, there was an insignificant change in the percentage of the majority sample
reporting a break in at home, from 1.6% to 1.5%. The minority sample percentage was up, from 1.3% to
2.3%. The pickpocketing rate was up for both majority and minority samples, from 1.5% to 2% and from
1.3% to 1.5%, respectively.
In Croat majority areas, the majority sample burglary at home rate was the same at the end of the
year as it had been a year before (1.1%), while the minority sample percentage was up significantly, from
0.2% to 3.5%. The majority pickpocketing rate was up, however, from 2.6% to 3.6%, as was the majority
sample percentage reporting car theft, from 0.8% to 1.6%. There was an increase in the percentage of the
minority sample who said they had been extorted, from 0.7% a year ago to 5.5% in the final quarter of
2008. The Serb majority areas minority sample reported fewer break-ins at home than in late 2007, down
from 0.8% to 0.5%. The majority sample percentage reporting pickpocketing was up, however, from 0.2%
to 1%, as was the percentage reporting extortion, from 0.2% to 0.5% (Table I c).
Fewer people in urban areas said they had sought police assistance than last year. The figure was
down from 9.5% in late 2007 to 4.4% in the first quarter, 6.6% mid year, and 5% at year end. In rural areas,
the percentage was up from 4.5% to 4.7%. There was a reduction in the percentages of both men and
women who said they sought police assistance, to 5.5% and 4.2% respectively, (Table II a).
Table IIa
During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason?

% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Yes 9,5 4,4 6,6 5,0 4,5 5,5 3,7 4,7 6,7 5,9 6,5 5,5 6,6 4,2 3,5
No 90,1 95,3 90,7 94,0 95,1 93,8 95,2 94,5 92,9 93,8 91,3 93,7 92,9 95,1 95,2 94,8
DK/NA 0,4 0,3 2,6 1,0 0,4 0,7 1,0 0,8 0,4 0,3 2,2 0,8 0,5 0,7 1,3 1,0
TOTAL 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
While fewer young people requested police help than a year ago (7.1%, down from 8.9% last
November), they are still the age group most likely to ask for it (Table II b).
In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage who requested police help declined
steadily through 2008, from 10.9% in late 2007 to 6.6% in the first and 5.9% in the second quarter, ending
the year at 5.8%. The Croat majority areas majority sample percentage was down from 4.9% to 4.6% over
the same period. Only in Serb majority areas did the majority sample percentage rise, from 2.7% to 3.8%
(Table II c).
Dissatisfaction with police assistance received was up in urban areas: up from 16.1% of the relevant
sample in late 2007 to 27.2% in late 2008. There was a similar increase in rural areas, up from 19.6% in
November 2007 to 26.3% in November 2008. Men are particularly likely to express such dissatisfaction,
with an increase from 12.7% last year to 36.1% in November 2008. Only women seem immune to this
72 trend, as there was in fact a decrease in the percentage of the sample expressing dissatisfaction, down
from 22.1% to 14.9% (Table III a).
In Bosniak majority areas, there was a considerable increase in dissatisfaction with police assistance
amongst the majority sample, up from 16% to 42.7%. There was a considerable increase amongst the
majority sample in the Croat majority areas, however, in the percentage expressing overall satisfaction
with police assistance, up from 16.5% to 45.1% over the year. In the Serb majority areas, the majority
sample was less satisfied than a year ago, with the percentage entirely satisfied down from 38.4% to
13.9% (Table III c).
There was a reduction in the percentage in urban areas who said that they or somebody in their
family had been arrested without warrant: down from 3% in November 2007 to 1.1% in November 2008.
The percentage was also down in rural areas, from 2.1% to 1.5% over the same period (Table IVa).
Table IVa
In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant?
Gender
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Yes 3,0 1,8 0,9 1,1 2,1 2,1 0,7 1,5 3,6 1,1 1,9 1,4 1,9 0,6 0,8
No 96,2 97,6 98,6 96,4 96,9 96,8 98,2 95,0 95,9 97,7 94,2 97,2 96,9 99,0 97,0
DK/NA 0,9 0,6 0,4 2,4 1,1 1,1 1,1 3,4 0,5 1,3 3,9 1,4 1,2 0,4 2,1
TOTAL 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
It is interesting that there was a general decline in the percentage of all categories reporting an
experience of arrest without warrant during 2008. All three age groups reported a lower incidence than
in the previous year (Table IV b).
There was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas reporting
arrest without warrant, down from 4.3% in late 2007 to 1.8% in November 2008. The majority sample
percentage increased marginally from 1.3% to 1.5%. Croat majority areas saw an increase in the
percentage of the majority sample from 2.3% and 4.3%. In Serb majority areas, similarly, there was a
decrease in the percentage of the majority sample who reported no negative experience of arrest without
warrant, down from 98.6% to 98%. The reduction was more significant for the minority sample, where it
was from 98.2% to 92.3% (Table IV c).
The percentage of the urban sample who said they had witnessed the police clearly abusing their
authorities was a little better than at the end of last year, down to 12.8% from 13.2% in November 2007.
There was also a reduction in the percentage in rural areas, from 8.8% to 6.2%. As in previous years, men
were more likely to witness such incidents than women (10.7% compared to 7.4%) (Table V a).
In Bosniak majority areas, the percentage of the majority sample who witnessed the clear abuse of
police powers was down on last year -- from 10.6% to 9.6%. The minority sample percentage was up from
2.3% to 6.1%. In Croat majority areas, the percentages of both the majority and minority samples who
witnessed such abuses were down: from 15.3% to 2.7% for the minority sample. In Serb majority areas,
there was also a decrease in the percentages of both samples, from 11.9% to 9% for the majority and from
4.6% to 2.2% for the minority sample (Table V c).
There was a reduction in the percentage of the urban sample who expressed approval of how the
police and the courts are doing their job. The police approval rating was down from 68% to 64.1%, while
the judiciary's approval rating was down from 63.5% to 58.6%. In rural areas, the police approval rating
was down from 62.5% to 61.2%, while the courts approval rating was actually up, from 53.4% to 54.4%.
Some 66.2% of the male sample expressed their approval of how the police do their job. The figure was
down in the first quarter to 50.1%, but after that gradually improved to reach its current level. The
percentage of the female sample, however, was down on the end of last year, from 65.2% to 59%. We
also note that men are more likely to express approval of the courts than women (58.9% compared to
53.6%) (Table VI a).
In Bosniak majority areas, there was a decrease in the percentages of the majority sample expressing 73
approval of the police and the courts, compared to the end of last year, but an increase in the percentages

of the minority sample. In Croat majority areas, there was a decline in both the majority and minority
sample percentages in approval. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage was up, from
73.5% to 77.2% (Table VI c).
There was a marginal increase in the percentage of the urban sample who think corruption is
widespread in the police force, up from 40.1% to 40.4% over the course of the year. The percentage had
risen considerably during the first quarter of 2008, but then returned to a more moderate level in the
following quarter. The rural sample percentage who think corruption is very widespread in the police was
down over the year, from 40.9% to 36.8%. There was an increase in the percentage of the urban sample
who think corruption is very widespread in the courts, up from 43.3% to 44.6%. In rural areas, there was
a reduction in the percentage who think corruption is very widespread in the courts, from 45.5% to 40.6%
(Table VII a).
Table VIIa How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is
in the following institutions?
Gender
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Police
Not at all 4,0 2,8 1,1 3,8 4,9 2,0 3,3 1,5 6,3 3,0 1,8 2,8 2,7 1,7 3,0 2,2
Slightly 19,6 9,2 18,0 16,5 11,6 12,4 16,1 15,2 15,0 11,9 16,2 16,5 15,3 10,1 17,6 15,0
To some degree 16,9 20,9 19,2 17,1 15,4 17,4 18,6 16,6 14,5 19,6 19,7 15,9 17,6 18,2 17,9 17,6
Quite 19,5 21,6 20,2 22,2 27,2 20,9 22,0 30,0 22,0 18,2 19,2 27,1 25,6 24,3 23,2 26,2
Very 40,1 45,4 41,4 40,4 40,9 47,3 40,0 36,8 42,2 47,2 43,0 37,7 38,9 45,7 38,2 38,9
TOTAL 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Courts
Not at all 4,0 1,7 1,0 2,4 3,0 2,8 2,4 1,1 4,4 2,7 1,2 1,9 2,4 1,9 2,4
Slightly 17,1 6,8 15,7 16,7 12,6 10,1 12,9 12,3 14,7 9,9 11,8 13,5 14,5 7,4 16,3
To some degree 15,5 16,0 16,7 13,3 12,7 12,9 18,6 16,3 13,9 14,9 19,2 16,0 14,0 13,7 16,4
Quite 20,2 25,2 20,3 22,8 26,2 20,8 24,3 29,7 20,6 19,9 21,5 27,4 26,5 25,5 23,6
Very 43,3 50,3 46,4 44,6 45,5 53,5 41,8 40,6 46,4 52,6 46,2 41,2 42,6 51,5 41,4
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
At the end of the year, we find that fewer of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas thought
corruption was widespread in the police force, down from 51.1% in November 2007 to 47.9% in
November 2008. The minority sample percentage was up from 57.2% to 59.4%. In Croat majority areas,
the percentage of the majority sample who think the police are highly corrupt was also down, but so was
the percentage of the minority sample. In Serb majority areas, there was also an increase in the
percentage of the majority sample who agree: up from 27.3% at the end of 2007 to 29.3%. That was a
similar increase for the minority sample, up from 25.4% to 27.7% (Table VII c).
ANNUAL
REPORT
2008
ANNEX
2 POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH
Annual Report 2008
The Political Stability Index of BiH
Table I
Politics in BiH are getting...?
Gender
Sample All Male Female
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Worse 67,0 50,0 50,9 63,4 70,3 48,3 51,8 63,8 63,8 51,7 50,1 63,0
Better 23,8 35,9 36,0 25,0 21,8 40,4 36,3 26,9 25,8 31,5 35,7 23,1
DK/NA 9,2 14,1 13,1 11,7 7,8 11,3 11,9 9,3 10,5 16,8 14,3 13,9
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 II
Politics in BiH are getting...?
Ispitanici Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Worse 78,8 54,4 57,2 79,7 57,7 57,5 61,5 52,9 57,3 42,5 42,5 50,3
Better 16,1 31,7 31,8 13,5 26,5 27,9 23,3 24,7 30,6 43,0 42,0 34,6
DK/NA 5,1 13,9 11,0 6,8 15,8 14,6 15,1 22,4 12,2 14,5 15,5 15,1
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
Table III 3
Annual Report 2008

Economic circumstances in BiH are currently....
March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Very bad 32,1 27,3 24,2 29,1 45,1 31,6 32,7 37,3 13,2 15,2 16,0 12,0 21,5 25,2 14,6 24,4
Generally bad 35,7 36,4 38,4 36,6 37,2 30,6 35,1 40,3 15,4 30,1 26,2 23,1 40,6 45,7 46,8 37,9
Neither bad nor good 25,9 31,4 32,2 29,8 14,5 32,1 27,7 21,3 56,6 47,4 50,0 46,8 30,3 25,9 32,9 35,4
Generally good 3,2 2,8 3,6 2,9 1,4 3,2 3,2 10,9 5,5 7,3 16,2 2,9 1,2 3,1 0,6
Very good 0,1 0,2 0,4 0,1 0,2 0,7 0,4 0,4
DK/NA 3,0 1,9 1,7 1,3 1,7 2,3 1,4 0,9 3,2 1,9 0,5 1,6 4,6 1,6 2,5 1,6
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL BAD 67,8 63,7 62,5 65,7 82,4 62,2 67,8 77,6 28,7 45,3 42,2 35,0 62,2 70,9 61,4 62,3
Neither bad nor good 25,9 31,4 32,2 29,8 14,5 32,1 27,7 21,3 56,6 47,4 50,0 46,8 30,3 25,9 32,9 35,4
TOTAL GOOD 3,3 3,0 3,6 3,3 1,4 3,3 3,2 0,2 11,5 5,5 7,3 16,6 2,9 1,7 3,1 0,6
DK/NA 3,0 1,9 1,7 1,3 1,7 2,3 1,4 0,9 3,2 1,9 0,5 1,6 4,6 1,6 2,5 1,6
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table IIIa Table IIIb
Economic circumstances in the RS are currently.... Over the next year economic conditions in the RS
will.... (%)
Republika Srpska
March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Republika Srpska
% % % % March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
Very bad 19,6 21,9 16,5 19,6 Deteriorate significantly 5,6 4,5 2,7 3,6
Generally bad 39,2 39,5 38,5 34,2 Deteriorate generally 20,7 19,1 19,0 22,5
Neither bad nor good 32,7 31,8 36,0 37,0 Stay the same 37,9 53,7 44,7 48,2
Generally good 7,0 5,7 6,6 6,7 Improve generally 28,7 17,2 24,9 20,9
Very good 0,2 1,1 Improve significantly 1,8 0,3 1,2 0,4
DK/NA 1,4 1,1 2,4 1,4 DK/NA 5,3 5,2 7,4 4,5
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL BAD 58,7 61,4 55,0 53,8 TOTAL WORSE 26,3 23,6 21,7 26,1
Neither bad nor good 32,7 31,8 36,0 37,0 Stay the same 37,9 53,7 44,7 48,2
TOTAL GOOD 7,2 5,7 6,6 7,8 TOTAL IMPROVE 30,5 17,5 26,1 21,3
DK/NA 1,4 1,1 2,4 1,4 DK/NA 5,3 5,2 7,4 4,5
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research
Table IV
Age Gender
All 18 - 35 36 - 50 51 + Male Female
2008 March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov March June Sept Nov
Yes 42.2 38.2 41.6 40.4 64.7 61.3 64.5 63.3 51.1 46.1 45.6 39.4 18.6 14.9 17.4 17.6 42.5 37.2 43.4 43.3 41.9 39.2 39.9 37.6
No 47.5 50.3 47.9 46.3 23.6 27.7 24.3 19.2 35.9 39.7 41.6 48.9 73.7 76.3 73.9 72.2 45.8 49.7 46.3 45.9 49.1 51.0 49.3 46.7
DK/NA 10.3 11.4 10.6 13.3 11.7 11.0 11.2 17.5 13.0 14.3 12.7 11.7 7.7 8.8 8.7 10.2 11.7 13.1 10.3 10.8 9.0 9.9 10.8 15.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0100.0100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4 Table V
Annual Report 2008

% % % % % % % % % % % %
Yes 48,7 36,8 48,2 39,2 41,4 43,5 48,8 43,4 34,7 38,0 31,5 41,6
No 44,2 52,4 41,2 44,8 44,7 40,4 44,0 43,2 52,0 50,8 56,3 47,6
DK/NA 7,2 10,8 10,6 15,9 14,0 16,2 7,2 13,5 13,3 11,2 12,1 10,8
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
Table VI
You look at the process of BiH joining the EU with....
March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.Nov 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Hope 73,0 74,8 67,4 63,9 85,8 86,0 78,3 75,0 61,8 69,9 66,4 62,2 62,1 63,2 56,6 49,3
Concern 18,2 16,9 22,8 26,3 9,5 7,3 15,9 18,8 27,3 24,4 27,0 28,8 24,7 25,4 27,3 35,6
DK/NA 8,8 8,3 9,8 9,8 4,7 6,6 5,8 6,1 10,9 5,8 6,6 9,0 13,1 11,4 16,0 15,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table VII
How important do you think EU membership is for BiH?
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Very 57,8 52,6 45,2 48,8 80,6 77,9 60,9 73,9 45,5 43,8 51,5 36,4 35,0 25,9 26,5 21,7
Somewhat 22,5 26,4 32,0 28,4 11,7 9,5 28,1 15,2 21,3 32,9 22,7 43,9 35,2 43,5 37,8 39,0
Neither important
nor unimportant 11,1 11,4 13,8 12,9 3,6 3,6 7,6 6,7 19,1 16,2 20,9 14,6 17,4 19,3 18,9 20,5
Fairly unimportant 2,2 1,6 1,1 2,4 0,1 0,2 4,8 1,9 0,7 0,5 3,8 3,0 2,6 5,9
Not at all important 2,5 2,5 3,9 3,9 0,4 0,4 2,0 1,4 1,2 1,2 5,1 5,9 9,3 9,1
DK/NA 4,0 5,4 3,9 3,6 3,6 8,7 3,5 3,8 7,4 3,8 3,0 3,5 3,6 2,5 4,9 3,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL IMPORTANT 80,3 79,0 77,3 77,2 92,3 87,4 88,9 89,1 66,7 76,7 74,2 80,3 70,2 69,3 64,4 60,7
Neither important
nor unimportant 11,1 11,4 13,8 12,9 3,6 3,6 7,6 6,7 19,1 16,2 20,9 14,6 17,4 19,3 18,9 20,5
TOTAL UNIMPORTANT 4,6 4,1 5,0 6,2 0,5 0,2 0,4 6,9 3,3 1,9 1,6 8,9 8,9 11,9 15,0
DK/NA 4,0 5,4 3,9 3,6 3,6 8,7 3,5 3,8 7,4 3,8 3,0 3,5 3,6 2,5 4,9 3,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table VIII 5
Annual Report 2008

To what extend to you support BiH joining the EU? (%)
Strongly support 61,1 52,6 50,9 48,5 86,5 78,7 72,2 74,5 47,7 43,6 45,6 34,3 35,4 25,1 29,3 20,2
Somewhat support 18,8 24,6 24,7 27,4 7,5 9,2 15,8 15,2 18,8 32,7 19,4 44,0 31,6 39,4 34,9 36,7
Neither for nor against 11,3 12,9 14,4 13,8 3,2 4,2 7,6 6,0 19,5 16,8 27,4 13,3 18,4 22,0 18,3 24,1
Somewhat against 2,7 2,3 2,5 1,9 0,1 1,0 0,4 3,7 1,4 1,4 1,9 5,6 5,1 4,7 4,0
Strongly against 2,8 2,5 3,9 5,0 0,6 0,2 0,1 0,7 2,6 0,7 1,9 1,1 5,7 5,7 8,8 11,7
DK/NA 3,3 5,1 3,6 3,4 2,3 7,5 3,3 3,1 7,7 4,8 4,2 5,4 3,2 2,7 4,0 3,3
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
TOTAL FOR 79,9 77,2 75,6 75,9 94,0 87,9 88,0 89,7 66,5 76,4 65,0 78,3 67,1 64,5 64,2 56,9
Neither for nor against 11,3 12,9 14,4 13,8 3,2 4,2 7,6 6,0 19,5 16,8 27,4 13,3 18,4 22,0 18,3 24,1
TOTAL AGAINST 5,5 4,8 6,4 7,0 0,6 0,4 1,2 1,1 6,3 2,1 3,4 3,0 11,3 10,8 13,5 15,7
DK/NA 3,3 5,1 3,6 3,4 2,3 7,5 3,3 3,1 7,7 4,8 4,2 5,4 3,2 2,7 4,0 3,3
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
Table IX
Taking all the circumstances into account, which party represents the political perspective closest to yours? (%)
Gender
All Male Female FBiH RS
June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.June 08.Sept 08.Nov 08.
DNZ BiH-Demokratska narodna zajednica BiH 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,2
Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu 3,3 5,1 3,4 3,2 4,0 4,0 3,4 6,2 2,8 5,3 8,7 5,7 0,2
SDA-Stranka demokratske akcije 5,5 9,1 7,9 6,4 9,9 7,8 4,6 8,3 7,9 8,9 15,5 13,2
Stranka penzionera-umirovljenika BiH 0,8 0,7 1,0 0,8 1,3 1,1 0,7 0,1 0,9 1,3 1,1 1,7
SDP-Socijaldemokratska partija BiH-Socijaldemokrati 7,6 9,2 10,7 6,8 10,8 12,2 8,4 7,8 9,3 12,4 14,5 17,2 0,5 0,2 0,2
Liberalno demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine 0,1 0,0 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,3
Penzionerska stranka RS 0,1 0,1 0,2 0,1 0,3 0,2
DNS-Demokratski narodni savez 0,5 1,5 0,9 0,7 2,2 1,3 0,3 0,9 0,6 1,2 3,6 2,4
SDS-Srpska demokratska stranka 3,6 5,4 3,4 3,7 5,7 3,5 3,6 5,1 3,3 0,4 9,1 13,0 8,2
Srpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav Šešelj 0,9 0,5 0,2 1,0 0,2 0,4 0,8 0,8 2,3 1,2 0,5
PDP RS-Partija demokratskog progresa RS 0,4 0,8 1,4 0,6 0,9 1,5 0,1 0,7 1,2 0,9 2,0 3,5
Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata-SNSD Milorad Dodik 12,9 14,1 9,7 13,5 13,7 9,0 12,4 14,4 10,4 32,7 35,3 23,9
Socijalistička partija 0,3 0,8 0,5 1,0 0,2 0,6 0,9 1,9
Narodna stranka "Radom za boljitak" 0,5 0,5 1,1 0,4 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,2 1,6 0,8 0,9 1,9
HDZ-Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH 3,8 4,9 4,1 3,8 5,4 4,5 3,7 4,5 3,6 6,5 8,4 6,4 0,2
Naša stranka 0,8 1,1 0,6 1,4
Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske 0,4 0,1 0,2 0,6 0,2 0,1 0,9 0,2
Građanska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine 0,1 0,3 0,2
BSP-Bosansko-hercegovačka stranka prava 0,1 0,1 0,1
Demokratska stanka invalida BiH-DSI BiH 0,1 0,1 0,1
DSS-Demokratska stranka Srpske 0,1 0,3 0,3
Zeleni BiH 0,2 0,0 0,4 0,1 0,3 0,1
Evropska ekološka stranka E-5 0,3 0,5 0,4
Hrvatska stranka prava
Bosne i Hercegovine-Ðapić dr. Jurišić 0,6 0,3 0,3 0,7 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,1 0,3 1,0 0,5 0,5
Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 0,7 0,8 0,5 0,8 0,6 0,7 0,7 1,0 0,4 1,2 1,4 0,8
Nezavisna demokratska stranka 0,0 0,1 0,1
Narodna bošnjačka stranka 0,1 0,1 0,1
Pokret mladih BiH 0,1 0,2 0,2
HNZ-Hrvatska narodna zajednica 0,0 0,0 0,0
BOSS-Bosanska stranka 0,4 0,3 0,2 0,7 0,1 0,3 0,1 0,5 0,1 0,7 0,6 0,4
SDU BiH-Socijaldemokratska Unija
Bosne i Hercegovine 0,10,0 0,0 0,3 0,3
BPS-Sefer Halilović 0,9 1,40,3 0,9 2,0 0,6 0,9 0,9 1,5 2,50,5
Some other 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,1 0,3 0,2 0,5 0,3
Won't vote 16,1 14,6 17,5 18,4 11,0
None of the above 34,3 25,5 8,6 34,3 24,8 8,6 34,3 26,1 8,5 35,4 25,9 8,7 32,4 24,6 9,0
DK 11,8 10,4 8,4 10,9 7,8 8,6 12,7 12,8 8,2 14,2 13,3 7,8 8,4 6,1 9,8
NA 9,5 8,1 20,3 8,2 8,2 18,5 10,7 8,0 22,0 9,0 5,7 14,0 9,8 11,8 31,1
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
6 Table X
Annual Report 2008
Taking all the circumstances into account, which party represents the political perspective closest to yours?

Juni 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Juni 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Juni 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
% % % % % % % % %
DNZ BiH-Demokratska narodna zajednica BiH 0,2 0,2
Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu 6,6 11,3 7,2 0,5 0,2
SDA-Stranka demokratske akcije 11,3 19,9 15,7 0,3 0,3 3,5
Stranka penzionera-umirovljenika BiH 1,7 1,4 2,1 0,2
SPD-Socijaldemokratska partija BiH-Socijaldemokrati 15,7 18,4 21,4 1,0 1,0 0,7 0,5 0,2 0,2
Liberalno demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine 0,3 0,1 0,4
Penzionerska stranka RS 0,3 0,2
DNS-Demokratski narodni savez 1,2 3,6 2,4
SDS-Srpska demokratska stranka 0,4 9,1 13,0 8,2
Srpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav Šešelj 2,3 1,2 0,5
PDP RS-Partija demokratskog progresa Republike Srpske 0,9 2,0 3,5
Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata-SNSD Milorad Dodik 32,7 35,3 23,9
Socijalistička partija 0,9 1,9
Narodna stranka "Radom za boljitak" 0,3 0,8 1,7 2,5 1,1 3,1
HDZ-Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH 29,3 37,8 31,3 0,2
Naša stranka 1,6 0,8
Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske 0,1 0,9 0,2
Građanska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine 0,3
BSP-Bosansko-hercegovačka stranka prava 0,1
Demokratska stanka invalida BiH-DSI BiH 0,1
DSS-Demokratska stranka Srpske 0,3
Zeleni BiH 0,4 0,4
Evropska ekološka stranka E-5 0,6
Hrvatska stranka prava Bosne i Hercegovine-Ðapić dr. Jurišić 4,5 2,1 2,5
Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 5,5 6,3 3,8
Nezavisna demokratska stranka 0,1
Narodna bošnjačka stranka 0,1
Pokret mladih BiH 0,2
HNZ-Hrvatska narodna zajednica 0,1
BOSS-Bosanska stranka 0,9 0,8 0,5
SDU BiH-Socijaldemokratska Unija Bosne i Hercegovine 0,3
BPS-Sefer Halilović 2,0 3,2 0,7
Some other 2,3 1,4
Won't vote 18,1 19,8 11,0
None of the above 35,1 23,2 6,7 36,5 35,5 16,3 32,4 24,6 9,0
DK 15,3 14,8 7,8 10,7 8,1 8,0 8,4 6,1 9,8
NA 9,6 5,3 15,5 6,9 7,4 8,4 9,8 11,8 31,1
TOTAL 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table XI 7
Annual Report 2008

Do you agree with the following? (%)

The parties currently in government are fairly successful in defining and implementing key reforms
Strongly agree 0,1 2,9 3,5 2,6 3,0 4,7 1,3 1,3 15,7 5,8 11,4 9,3
Agree to some degree 9,1 12,4 6,7 2,7 13,3 8,5 7,0 9,8 25,5 28,0 28,9 33,1
Neither agree nor disagree 21,2 15,0 19,9 18,9 39,5 30,5 42,5 36,4 29,9 36,3 28,7 30,1
Disagree strongly 58,9 54,4 61,2 68,3 27,7 50,6 35,3 24,8 20,9 20,7 21,7 19,1
DK/NA 10,6 15,2 8,7 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 8,0 9,1 9,4 8,3
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 AGREE 9,3 15,3 10,2 5,3 16,4 13,2 8,3 11,1 41,2 33,9 40,3 42,4
TOTAL DISAGREE 58,9 54,4 61,2 68,3 27,7 50,6 35,3 24,8 20,9 20,7 21,7 19,1
DK/NA 10,6 15,2 8,7 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 8,0 9,1 9,4 8,3
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
The parties currently in govermment show sufficient responsibility to the public
Strongly agree 0,1 2,8 2,3 1,3 5,4 4,5 1,1 1,9 11,7 5,1 9,3 7,0
DK/NA 9,6 15,2 8,3 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 7,1 8,8 9,4 9,5
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 AGREE 8,8 8,8 8,2 4,6 16,1 9,2 7,8 9,9 34,9 23,3 31,5 29,8
TOTAL DISAGREE 60,5 63,6 61,2 67,6 27,7 54,1 39,8 27,8 29,0 36,4 30,0 28,9
DK/NA 9,6 15,2 8,3 7,5 16,4 5,6 14,0 27,7 7,1 8,8 9,4 9,5
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
The parties currently in government are capable of meeting the conditions for progress towards integration with Europe within a reasonable timeframe
Strongly agree 0,1 1,9 3,2 1,0 3,1 4,2 0,4 1,3 13,4 4,6 10,6 8,6
DK/NA 10,9 15,5 8,4 7,5 16,4 5,9 14,0 28,0 9,9 10,5 10,0 9,4
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 AGREE 7,7 11,4 8,7 4,1 16,0 9,2 5,4 10,1 35,6 29,1 35,9 33,2
TOTAL DISAGREE 58,1 55,4 62,5 67,2 28,3 49,0 39,3 26,8 21,0 21,8 23,8 20,7
DK/NA 10,9 15,5 8,4 7,5 16,4 5,9 14,0 28,0 9,9 10,5 10,0 9,4
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
The parties currently in government deserve to remain in power
Strongly agree 0,7 2,9 3,3 1,4 3,5 4,2 1,2 1,3 15,7 6,5 12,4 9,3
DK/NA 10,4 15,7 8,2 8,3 18,3 7,6 14,0 27,7 7,9 9,3 10,7 9,3
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 AGREE 7,2 10,0 7,6 2,8 15,3 8,8 6,6 10,7 36,2 28,5 33,7 35,2
TOTAL DISAGREE 59,8 58,8 61,3 68,8 30,1 48,2 40,4 27,2 23,3 23,2 24,0 19,8
DK/NA 10,4 15,7 8,2 8,3 18,3 7,6 14,0 27,7 7,9 9,3 10,7 9,3
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
Changing the composition of the government would help accelerate implementation of key reforms and economic recovery
Strongly agree 27,5 37,9 34,2 45,7 12,5 20,0 19,8 12,4 10,8 7,8 9,3 6,5
DK/NA 14,4 16,8 9,3 8,6 16,8 7,5 15,2 30,4 12,1 18,1 13,5 11,4
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 AGREE 54,7 53,4 55,6 59,8 32,7 40,3 35,5 26,7 26,4 22,5 25,1 21,5
TOTAL DISAGREE 9,6 16,5 16,6 15,6 10,0 15,4 13,8 9,5 24,9 21,0 20,7 25,3
DK/NA 14,4 16,8 9,3 8,6 16,8 7,5 15,2 30,4 12,1 18,1 13,5 11,4
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
8 INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH
Annual Report 2008
Table Ia
Do you approve of the work of….? (%)

Gender
All Male Female
BiH Presidency
Yes 41,5 38,4 38,5 40,4 41,9 40,6 35,0 42,7 41,1 36,2 41,9 38,2
No 34,9 39,8 39,7 39,1 36,8 42,0 45,1 36,7 33,1 37,7 34,5 41,4
Not applicable 1,0 3,3 1,4 1,0 4,2 1,9 0,9 2,5 1,0
Neither approve nor disapprove 14,2 9,5 12,1 8,4 13,4 8,1 9,7 8,9 15,0 11,0 14,3 8,0
DK/NA 8,4 9,0 8,3 12,0 6,9 5,2 8,3 11,6 9,8 12,6 8,3 12,4
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
BiH Parliament
Yes 41,3 37,4 37,6 41,2 41,9 39,0 34,4 42,8 40,7 35,9 40,7 39,7
No 35,0 41,1 40,0 38,1 36,5 44,2 45,2 36,4 33,5 38,1 35,1 39,7
Not applicable 1,1 3,2 1,5 1,2 3,9 2,0 0,9 2,5 0,9
DK/NA 8,6 9,1 9,0 12,2 7,3 5,2 8,9 12,0 9,7 12,9 9,1 12,4
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
Council of Ministers
Yes 41,3 37,0 38,4 41,3 41,3 39,2 35,8 43,6 41,4 34,9 40,9 39,1
No 34,7 41,3 39,9 38,2 36,8 44,1 44,4 36,0 32,7 38,6 35,6 40,3
Not applicable 1,0 3,4 1,4 1,1 4,4 2,0 0,9 2,4 0,7
DK/NA 8,6 9,1 8,6 12,0 7,3 5,2 8,4 11,7 9,7 12,9 8,8 12,3
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 Parliament
Yes 40,5 35,3 37,3 37,8 40,7 37,2 33,5 39,8 40,3 33,5 41,0 35,9
No 35,1 42,8 39,9 41,0 37,1 46,0 45,5 39,4 33,3 39,7 34,6 42,5
Not applicable 1,4 3,1 2,0 1,3 4,0 2,5 1,5 2,3 1,5
DK/NA 8,5 9,3 9,0 12,2 7,2 5,3 8,8 11,7 9,8 13,2 9,1 12,7
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 Government
Yes 40,9 35,3 36,3 39,1 40,8 37,0 32,9 42,1 41,1 33,6 39,6 36,2
No 34,7 42,5 40,8 40,2 37,2 45,4 46,3 37,6 32,2 39,7 35,5 42,6
Not applicable 1,4 3,1 2,1 1,3 4,0 2,7 1,5 2,3 1,5
DK/NA 8,8 9,3 9,2 12,0 7,3 5,3 8,8 11,6 10,1 13,2 9,6 12,4
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
Yes 41,2 36,5 37,8 40,2 41,0 36,9 36,2 44,6 41,4 36,2 39,4 36,1
No 36,3 41,3 38,7 39,7 39,3 45,3 41,8 35,0 33,4 37,4 35,7 44,1
Not applicable 0,4 3,2 1,5 0,5 3,9 2,2 0,4 2,5 0,9
DK/NA 9,6 9,2 10,7 11,9 8,0 5,8 10,4 10,7 11,0 12,5 11,0 13,0
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
RS Government
Yes 41,4 37,1 38,1 40,3 42,1 37,7 36,5 44,5 40,7 36,5 39,6 36,3
No 36,0 41,2 39,1 39,6 37,7 44,9 42,4 34,7 34,3 37,7 35,9 44,3
Not applicable 0,3 3,1 1,6 0,3 3,7 2,4 0,4 2,5 0,9
DK/NA 9,6 9,3 9,9 11,9 7,9 6,0 9,3 11,1 11,3 12,5 10,4 12,7
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
Yes 53,4 47,2 46,5 55,5 53,2 51,0 43,5 59,0 53,6 43,6 49,4 52,2
No 25,1 31,7 32,2 25,0 26,8 33,1 36,7 21,1 23,5 30,2 27,8 28,7
Not applicable 0,3 3,0 1,6 0,5 3,9 2,4 0,1 2,2 0,9
DK/NA 8,8 8,9 8,7 12,3 7,6 5,4 8,6 12,2 9,9 12,2 8,9 12,4
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
Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research
Table Ib 9
Annual Report 2008

Gender
All Male Female
Cantonal Authorities
Yes 39,4 29,5 34,6 38,6 40,0 31,1 31,8 42,0 38,8 27,9 37,3 35,4
No 36,0 45,3 43,5 38,3 37,5 49,4 48,9 35,0 34,6 41,4 38,3 41,3
Not applicable 0,6 3,7 1,2 0,7 5,8 1,8 0,5 1,6 0,7
DK/NA 11,6 11,8 10,0 17,0 9,7 7,8 8,4 16,3 13,4 15,7 11,5 17,7
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
OSCE
Yes 49,4 40,4 44,1 48,0 50,3 41,9 41,8 52,2 48,6 39,0 46,3 43,9
No 24,7 33,4 32,4 26,3 25,5 36,1 36,3 24,3 23,9 30,8 28,7 28,1
Not applicable 1,3 2,8 1,6 1,0 3,7 1,7 1,6 2,0 1,5
DK/NA 12,7 12,4 10,7 15,4 11,5 8,2 10,8 13,7 13,9 16,4 10,5 16,9
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
OHR
Yes 46,8 40,3 42,9 45,6 47,7 41,4 40,5 47,7 45,9 39,3 45,2 43,6
No 26,5 33,1 33,4 29,6 27,1 36,3 37,2 28,9 26,0 30,0 29,8 30,4
Not applicable 1,5 2,7 1,5 1,2 3,5 1,7 1,8 1,9 1,3
DK/NA 12,1 12,2 11,0 13,6 11,5 8,0 10,8 13,0 12,7 16,2 11,1 14,1
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
UNDP
Yes 48,5 42,4 43,8 50,5 48,2 44,6 41,9 55,0 48,7 40,3 45,7 46,2
No 22,5 29,7 29,5 22,9 24,7 32,2 32,8 21,2 20,5 27,3 26,3 24,5
Not applicable 1,4 3,0 1,5 1,5 3,4 1,7 1,3 2,7 1,4
DK/NA 14,3 13,0 13,5 15,9 13,5 8,8 13,9 14,3 15,0 17,1 13,2 17,4
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
EUFOR
Yes 46,1 39,9 42,1 47,2 46,6 42,3 39,9 49,8 45,5 37,6 44,2 44,7
No 25,1 32,9 32,9 27,5 25,9 36,1 35,9 27,1 24,3 29,8 30,0 28,0
Not applicable 1,4 2,9 1,4 1,5 3,4 1,7 1,3 2,4 1,1
DK/NA 13,4 12,3 12,5 14,6 12,6 6,9 12,8 13,3 14,1 17,4 12,1 15,9
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
EU
Yes 45,2 41,7 42,3 47,7 45,5 43,7 40,1 53,3 45,0 39,8 44,3 42,4
No 23,0 29,6 29,4 24,5 24,9 33,2 33,1 22,5 21,3 26,1 25,9 26,5
Not applicable 1,3 3,3 1,7 1,3 4,1 1,7 1,3 2,6 1,6
DK/NA 16,2 13,7 15,1 17,4 14,8 8,6 15,1 14,7 17,6 18,5 15,1 19,9
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
US
Yes 40,5 36,4 36,7 38,7 41,1 37,3 33,3 41,9 39,9 35,4 40,0 35,7
No 30,6 36,2 37,1 35,2 32,2 40,8 41,4 35,2 29,1 31,9 33,1 35,1
Not applicable 2,2 3,3 2,2 2,0 4,3 2,8 2,4 2,3 1,7
DK/NA 13,6 12,6 12,4 14,9 12,9 7,9 12,7 13,2 14,2 17,1 12,2 16,5
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
European Integration Directorate
Yes 45,6 41,7 42,1 47,7 46,1 44,5 40,0 53,2 45,0 39,0 44,1 42,5
No 22,9 29,3 30,1 23,4 24,6 31,7 34,0 21,3 21,3 27,0 26,4 25,4
Not applicable 1,1 2,9 1,6 1,1 3,4 1,7 1,2 2,3 1,5
DK/NA 16,5 13,7 14,9 18,0 15,1 9,0 15,0 15,7 17,9 18,2 14,8 20,2
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
10 Table IIa
Annual Report 2008

BiH Presidency
Yes 28,2 25,3 31,8 31,4 46,6 31,4 32,4 34,5 52,9 53,9 45,7 49,5
No 47,8 49,4 50,7 52,1 21,7 48,3 33,4 22,6 26,0 27,3 30,3 30,8
Not applicable 0,8 4,7 1,0 1,9 1,9 3,2 0,6 2,4 1,4
DK/NA 11,4 13,5 7,8 11,5 12,2 4,8 12,8 26,2 4,0 5,6 7,9 9,1
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
BiH Parliament
Yes 28,1 23,6 30,5 32,1 46,3 31,1 33,4 33,5 52,9 53,6 44,7 51,2
No 47,6 51,3 50,7 51,7 22,2 50,1 33,6 23,7 25,9 27,6 31,2 28,3
Not applicable 0,8 4,7 0,9 1,7 0,8 2,0 1,0 2,4 2,1
DK/NA 11,6 13,5 9,1 11,8 12,6 4,8 13,5 25,4 4,0 5,9 7,9 9,4
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
Yes 27,7 22,9 30,8 31,4 45,8 30,7 35,0 33,2 53,5 53,6 45,9 52,4
No 47,5 50,9 51,8 52,5 22,6 51,8 32,0 23,8 25,2 28,0 30,1 27,4
Not applicable 0,8 5,1 0,9 1,5 0,6 2,0 0,8 2,4 1,8
DK/NA 11,6 13,7 7,8 11,8 12,6 4,5 13,5 24,7 4,0 5,9 8,4 9,1
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
FBiH Parliament
Yes 28,0 23,1 31,5 28,9 45,7 30,4 33,9 31,8 50,9 49,1 42,6 47,8
No 47,6 51,2 50,8 55,3 21,9 51,7 32,6 25,2 26,7 31,4 31,1 29,9
Not applicable 0,8 4,6 0,9 1,4 2,2 2,0 2,6 3,3
DK/NA 11,6 13,5 8,4 11,4 12,6 4,5 13,5 24,7 3,9 6,6 8,6 10,1
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
FBiH Government
Yes 28,1 22,2 29,8 30,5 45,9 30,8 33,4 32,4 51,9 49,9 42,0 48,8
No 47,9 51,2 53,1 54,2 22,2 52,0 33,1 25,0 25,0 30,6 30,6 29,2
Not applicable 0,7 4,6 0,9 1,4 2,2 2,0 2,6 3,6
DK/NA 11,7 13,5 8,1 11,4 12,6 4,5 13,5 23,6 4,3 6,6 9,5 9,9
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
Yes 16,9 15,1 22,2 19,1 30,0 23,6 18,3 16,9 72,7 65,0 61,6 71,6
No 57,4 57,4 56,9 62,4 36,5 56,0 38,3 38,1 12,4 17,8 17,1 12,8
Not applicable 4,9 0,9 0,6 0,8 3,7 0,4 2,2 1,6
DK/NA 13,5 14,1 12,5 13,9 15,0 5,9 16,0 24,3 3,4 5,3 7,4 6,4
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
RS Government
Yes 17,1 15,3 23,2 18,9 29,5 24,4 16,9 17,3 73,3 65,8 61,6 71,9
No 56,6 57,8 57,7 63,0 36,8 54,8 39,7 37,4 12,2 17,6 16,7 12,1
Not applicable 4,9 0,9 0,6 0,8 3,7 0,2 2,0 1,9
DK/NA 13,5 14,4 10,7 13,4 15,4 6,2 16,0 25,5 3,5 5,0 7,4 6,7
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
Yes 40,3 31,7 37,9 47,1 48,7 42,5 34,1 35,6 69,8 65,5 58,6 69,0
No 36,5 42,8 45,2 36,3 19,6 36,5 28,0 21,6 14,1 18,0 19,4 13,9
Not applicable 4,5 1,0 1,0 0,6 2,6 0,2 2,3 2,1
DK/NA 10,9 13,6 8,2 12,8 13,7 4,8 14,7 24,4 4,7 5,1 7,8 8,8
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
Table IIb 11
Annual Report 2008


Cantonal Authorities
Yes 37,0 25,9 34,4 40,1 47,9 42,3 35,3 32,7
No 40,8 47,8 47,8 42,2 19,4 36,6 28,1 23,0
Not applicable 0,3 4,5 1,0 1,8 0,9 2,1
Neither approve nor disapprove 10,7 8,0 8,2 3,2 18,1 15,7 19,6 17,4
DK/NA 11,3 13,9 8,6 14,5 12,9 4,5 14,9 26,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
OSCE
Yes 52,2 36,3 49,7 54,7 49,1 45,7 32,5 38,2 44,1 41,3 39,8 39,8
No 21,3 31,8 31,1 23,1 17,6 32,8 30,2 18,1 32,1 36,6 35,7 34,2
Not applicable 1,9 5,6 1,3 1,7 0,4 2,3 0,6 0,6 1,6
DK/NA 13,8 15,8 10,9 15,0 15,2 5,5 14,7 23,1 11,0 11,3 9,7 14,1
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
OHR
Yes 55,4 38,6 51,4 56,5 48,0 46,1 31,5 35,0 34,2 38,3 35,2 32,5
No 17,9 27,5 28,8 20,8 18,5 31,6 30,0 19,6 40,4 41,0 41,0 45,1
Not applicable 1,9 5,4 1,3 2,5 0,6 2,2 0,6 0,4 1,4
DK/NA 13,8 16,3 10,8 13,7 15,0 6,1 14,7 23,8 9,6 10,0 10,6 11,0
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
UNDP
Yes 52,1 38,2 49,9 58,4 49,2 48,0 35,1 37,8 41,9 43,3 38,2 41,8
No 17,2 27,6 26,1 17,9 16,1 28,4 26,3 17,8 31,9 33,5 35,4 31,9
Not applicable 2,2 5,6 1,3 2,1 1,4 2,0 0,2 0,7 1,6
DK/NA 16,8 16,4 15,4 16,3 15,5 6,3 15,1 25,3 11,4 11,9 11,6 13,4
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
EUFOR
Yes 51,2 37,8 50,4 56,6 48,8 47,1 32,3 36,4 37,0 37,9 34,2 36,0
No 19,8 27,8 27,9 20,5 15,3 30,3 29,8 18,8 35,4 40,6 40,8 40,3
Not applicable 2,2 5,8 1,3 2,6 1,3 1,7 0,2 0,2 1,2
DK/NA 14,8 16,4 13,1 15,4 15,7 5,7 14,7 23,8 11,4 10,2 11,6 11,6
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
EU
Yes 47,9 37,3 46,7 53,8 49,4 47,0 35,9 37,1 38,5 43,0 37,6 40,6
No 18,6 27,8 27,4 19,0 15,6 29,2 24,7 17,8 31,5 32,7 34,2 34,7
Not applicable 2,2 6,2 1,4 1,8 1,6 2,0 0,2 0,7 1,8
DK/NA 18,5 17,1 17,1 19,8 16,1 6,3 17,1 25,7 14,2 12,8 12,9 12,9
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
US
Yes 44,6 33,6 42,7 46,7 45,3 48,7 32,2 34,4 31,6 33,3 29,4 27,2
No 22,5 30,9 33,6 29,3 19,7 27,8 27,9 19,0 45,0 46,4 45,6 48,9
Not applicable 4,1 7,0 2,9 1,5 0,5 1,4 0,2 0,2 1,6
DK/NA 16,1 17,1 12,9 16,1 16,1 6,0 16,8 25,0 10,2 10,1 11,1 11,1
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
Yes 47,6 37,0 47,4 53,5 48,0 44,6 35,0 35,7 40,1 44,1 36,6 41,6
No 19,6 28,3 27,4 18,9 16,6 31,4 24,7 17,7 29,7 30,6 36,1 31,8
Not applicable 1,9 5,3 1,4 1,5 1,1 2,4 0,2 0,7 1,6
DK/NA 18,2 17,5 16,8 20,1 16,3 5,6 17,2 25,8 15,2 12,7 12,8 14,1
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
12 Table IIIa
Annual Report 2008
How well do you thing the following institutions do their jobs? (%)
All Bosniak majority area Croat majority areas Serb majority areas
Central Bank of BiH
Very well 10,4 9,5 12,8 7,4 14,8 14,7 20,8 8,7 6,6 4,2 5,8 3,1 4,5 4,7 5,6 6,8
Fairly well 37,8 38,3 37,6 33,1 37,4 39,2 32,9 25,2 32,1 44,1 34,7 26,8 39,8 35,7 43,1 42,7
Fairly poorly 19,6 19,7 19,2 29,5 14,1 13,6 19,4 34,3 27,0 34,6 19,9 32,1 24,4 20,7 18,6 23,5
Very poorly 5,5 6,6 7,2 9,8 6,1 5,0 4,9 12,1 7,2 7,3 9,8 6,7 4,1 8,4 9,0 8,5
DK/NA 26,7 25,9 23,2 20,2 27,5 27,5 21,9 19,8 27,1 9,9 29,7 31,3 27,2 30,5 23,8 18,5
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
TOTAL GOOD 48,2 47,8 50,4 40,5 52,2 54,0 53,7 33,8 38,7 48,2 40,5 29,9 44,3 40,4 48,6 49,5
TOTAL BAD 25,1 26,2 26,3 39,3 20,2 18,6 24,3 46,4 34,2 41,8 29,8 38,9 28,5 29,1 27,6 32,0
DK/NA 26,7 25,9 23,2 20,2 27,5 27,5 21,9 19,8 27,1 9,9 29,7 31,3 27,2 30,5 23,8 18,5
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
Indirect Taxation Authority of BiH
Very well 5,4 7,0 7,2 6,6 6,1 12,0 10,0 8,5 2,5 1,8 3,7 2,4 3,9 3,3 5,6 4,8
Fairly well 34,0 32,8 32,4 32,6 32,1 31,8 24,0 23,4 28,0 37,7 29,2 25,8 37,7 32,4 42,6 44,9
Fairly poorly 28,0 26,6 29,2 28,8 24,7 23,5 35,0 33,1 34,9 38,6 26,2 32,1 30,3 24,7 22,3 23,1
Very poorly 7,6 9,5 9,5 13,3 9,0 6,4 8,2 18,5 8,8 12,1 12,7 8,8 5,9 12,3 10,1 8,4
DK/NA 25,0 24,1 21,7 18,7 28,1 26,3 22,7 16,6 25,7 9,8 28,2 30,9 22,2 27,2 19,4 18,7
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
TOTAL GOOD 39,4 39,8 39,6 39,3 38,2 43,8 34,0 31,9 30,5 39,5 32,9 28,2 41,6 35,7 48,2 49,7
TOTAL BAD 35,6 36,1 38,7 42,0 33,7 29,9 43,2 51,6 43,8 50,6 38,9 40,8 36,1 37,0 32,4 31,5
DK/NA 25,0 24,1 21,7 18,7 28,1 26,3 22,7 16,6 25,7 9,8 28,2 30,9 22,2 27,2 19,4 18,7
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
Entity Tax Authorities
Very well 5,4 6,7 5,7 3,5 6,1 11,4 6,7 3,1 3,1 1,3 3,3 3,0 4,1 3,4 5,6 2,9
Fairly well 32,3 30,2 31,6 29,5 30,0 28,3 24,1 23,4 22,4 35,4 26,7 23,7 38,3 30,1 41,6 37,3
Fairly poorly 30,8 28,1 30,1 31,8 27,7 24,7 35,9 34,4 39,2 38,9 27,7 31,5 31,0 27,4 23,8 29,8
Very poorly 8,6 11,6 12,2 17,6 11,0 8,8 12,4 23,1 10,3 15,4 16,9 11,6 5,7 13,6 9,8 13,1
DK/NA 23,0 23,5 20,4 17,6 25,2 26,8 21,0 16,0 25,1 9,0 25,5 30,2 20,9 25,5 19,2 16,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL GOOD 37,7 36,9 37,3 33,0 36,1 39,7 30,8 26,5 25,5 36,7 30,0 26,7 42,4 33,5 47,2 40,2
TOTAL BAD 39,4 39,6 42,3 49,4 38,6 33,5 48,2 57,5 49,4 54,3 44,5 43,1 36,7 41,0 33,6 42,9
DK/NA 23,0 23,5 20,4 17,6 25,2 26,8 21,0 16,0 25,1 9,0 25,5 30,2 20,9 25,5 19,2 16,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
The Judicial System
Very well 4,3 5,7 5,1 5,3 3,7 9,5 6,6 6,1 3,0 1,6 2,5 2,3 4,2 2,9 4,5 4,1
Fairly well 28,2 28,1 27,3 28,1 25,7 27,4 20,2 23,1 22,6 29,4 25,2 28,5 32,5 27,6 36,1 32,8
Fairly poorly 29,9 30,8 35,1 25,4 26,6 26,1 39,8 27,1 34,1 41,0 24,5 26,1 32,2 32,3 32,8 23,6
Very poorly 17,6 14,4 15,1 10,9 22,2 13,1 15,4 15,4 15,5 18,9 23,1 5,3 13,8 14,9 11,2 7,3
DK/NA 20,0 20,9 17,4 30,2 21,9 23,9 18,0 28,3 24,7 9,0 24,6 37,8 17,3 22,2 15,4 32,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL GOOD 32,5 33,9 32,4 33,4 29,4 36,9 26,8 29,2 25,6 31,0 27,7 30,8 36,7 30,5 40,6 36,9
TOTAL BAD 47,5 45,2 50,2 36,3 48,7 39,2 55,2 42,5 49,6 60,0 47,7 31,4 46,0 47,2 44,1 30,9
DK/NA 20,0 20,9 17,4 30,2 21,9 23,9 18,0 28,3 24,7 9,0 24,6 37,8 17,3 22,2 15,4 32,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Very well 4,3 6,6 5,1 4,4 5,3 10,8 7,9 5,1 3,3 0,8 2,9 2,5 2,3 3,9 3,1 3,0
Fairly well 28,7 32,7 28,6 25,7 28,0 31,1 20,4 21,0 24,9 33,6 30,7 25,4 30,2 34,2 37,6 30,5
Fairly poorly 27,7 24,3 30,2 24,7 25,2 23,0 35,7 25,5 33,7 40,3 22,9 24,0 28,5 19,3 25,3 24,2
Very poorly 8,5 7,6 11,0 12,4 10,5 5,7 9,2 18,6 9,1 12,4 14,8 6,6 6,3 8,1 10,9 7,1
DK/NA 30,8 28,7 25,1 32,8 31,0 29,3 26,9 29,9 29,0 12,9 28,8 41,5 32,7 34,6 23,2 35,3
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
TOTAL GOOD 33,0 39,3 33,7 30,0 33,3 42,0 28,3 26,0 28,2 34,4 33,5 27,9 32,5 38,0 40,6 33,4
TOTAL BAD 36,2 32,0 41,2 37,2 35,8 28,7 44,8 44,0 42,8 52,6 37,7 30,5 34,7 27,4 36,2 31,3
DK/NA 30,8 28,7 25,1 32,8 31,0 29,3 26,9 29,9 29,0 12,9 28,8 41,5 32,7 34,6 23,2 35,3
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
Table IIIb 13
Annual Report 2008

How well do you thing the following institutions do their jobs? (%)
All Bosniak majority area Croat majority areas Serb majority areas
Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA)
Very well 4,0 6,0 5,7 2,3 3,8 10,4 9,6 2,0 3,7 1,7 2,3 2,3 3,0 2,7 2,6 2,0
Fairly well 29,8 30,1 26,2 15,7 27,8 26,7 18,9 11,4 28,6 35,5 29,9 17,0 31,6 31,8 33,3 19,2
Fairly poorly 25,0 23,5 27,0 31,5 24,7 24,5 32,2 30,2 27,1 37,0 22,7 31,1 24,7 17,0 22,1 34,1
Very poorly 8,7 9,5 12,3 30,7 10,7 8,6 9,8 39,2 9,7 12,7 12,6 14,3 6,4 9,1 13,5 25,4
DK/NA 32,5 30,9 28,8 19,8 33,0 29,8 29,5 17,2 30,9 13,1 32,5 35,4 34,2 39,4 28,4 19,3
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
TOTAL GOOD 33,8 36,1 31,9 18,0 31,6 37,1 28,5 13,4 32,3 37,2 32,1 19,3 34,6 34,6 35,9 21,3
TOTAL BAD 33,7 32,9 39,3 62,2 35,4 33,1 42,0 69,4 36,8 49,7 35,3 45,3 31,1 26,1 35,7 59,4
DK/NA 32,5 30,9 28,8 19,8 33,0 29,8 29,5 17,2 30,9 13,1 32,5 35,4 34,2 39,4 28,4 19,3
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
Privatization Agency
Very well 2,3 3,8 4,1 1,6 1,9 5,6 6,9 1,0 2,4 1,2 2,0 2,8 1,5 2,7 1,7 1,8
Fairly well 24,6 19,1 18,1 14,2 20,9 20,3 13,5 8,7 17,0 25,4 19,1 14,5 29,8 15,0 23,4 20,5
Fairly poorly 33,8 31,2 33,0 26,3 32,5 26,7 34,8 27,6 38,6 39,7 28,8 30,7 34,7 33,7 32,0 24,1
Very poorly 19,0 22,1 25,9 42,7 21,8 19,5 26,6 49,4 14,6 24,0 23,3 20,9 18,0 23,8 24,9 40,3
DK/NA 20,4 23,9 18,9 15,2 22,9 27,8 18,2 13,3 27,3 9,6 26,7 31,0 16,0 24,8 18,0 13,4
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
TOTAL GOOD 26,9 22,9 22,2 15,8 22,8 25,9 20,4 9,8 19,5 26,6 21,1 17,3 31,4 17,7 25,1 22,2
TOTAL BAD 52,8 53,3 59,0 69,1 54,3 46,2 61,4 76,9 53,2 63,7 52,1 51,7 52,6 57,5 56,9 64,4
DK/NA 20,4 23,9 18,9 15,2 22,9 27,8 18,2 13,3 27,3 9,6 26,7 31,0 16,0 24,8 18,0 13,4
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
Employment Bureaus
Very well 1,5 4,0 2,3 2,5 1,1 7,2 4,1 2,9 2,6 0,7 2,0 2,8 1,5 1,6 0,6 2,0
Fairly well 18,8 15,0 15,1 12,6 15,4 16,9 8,1 11,7 16,0 14,4 18,8 24,0 24,0 13,0 22,0 10,4
Fairly poorly 30,0 26,1 24,0 28,3 30,6 22,3 20,2 26,5 28,5 44,2 28,2 24,4 31,3 24,5 26,2 31,6
Very poorly 34,1 36,9 42,8 38,2 36,2 32,3 52,2 36,8 28,4 31,5 25,4 38,1 30,5 43,1 37,5 39,6
DK/NA 15,7 18,0 15,7 18,3 16,7 21,4 15,3 22,0 24,6 9,3 25,6 10,7 12,6 17,8 13,7 16,6
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
TOTAL GOOD 20,2 19,0 17,4 15,1 16,5 24,1 12,2 14,6 18,6 15,0 20,8 26,8 25,5 14,6 22,6 12,3
TOTAL BAD 64,0 63,0 66,9 66,5 66,8 54,5 72,4 63,3 56,8 75,7 53,6 62,5 61,8 67,6 63,7 71,1
DK/NA 15,7 18,0 15,7 18,3 16,7 21,4 15,3 22,0 24,6 9,3 25,6 10,7 12,6 17,8 13,7 16,6
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
14 Table IVa
Annual Report 2008
How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in
the following institutions (%)
Gender
All Male Female
BiH Presidency
Not at all 3,5 2,4 2,5 2,2 3,1 3,1 2,3 2,3 3,8 1,6 2,7 2,2
A little 18,9 13,0 22,0 17,2 19,9 14,6 20,8 18,2 17,8 11,5 23,1 16,1
Moderately 13,5 14,6 16,6 14,6 12,6 15,5 17,6 14,8 14,3 13,7 15,6 14,3
Fairly 22,6 21,7 19,7 25,5 18,3 19,0 17,9 25,0 26,8 24,5 21,6 25,9
Very 41,6 48,3 39,1 40,6 46,0 47,9 41,4 39,6 37,3 48,8 36,9 41,5
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
BiH Parliament
Not at all 2,3 2,2 1,5 1,2 2,3 3,1 1,4 1,3 2,3 1,3 1,6 1,2
A little 15,4 11,8 19,8 14,3 15,8 13,0 18,2 15,6 15,0 10,5 21,3 13,1
Moderately 14,1 14,5 17,0 15,6 11,8 14,7 17,8 15,9 16,3 14,2 16,2 15,3
Fairly 26,1 23,1 19,9 26,9 23,5 21,1 18,4 26,2 28,7 25,2 21,3 27,6
Very 42,1 48,4 41,9 41,9 46,6 48,2 44,2 41,1 37,6 48,7 39,6 42,8
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
Not at all 2,2 2,0 1,4 1,2 1,7 2,8 1,2 1,8 2,7 1,2 1,6 0,6
A little 14,7 11,8 19,3 13,3 15,1 13,7 19,1 13,5 14,3 10,0 19,5 13,2
Moderately 13,5 13,4 16,1 15,0 11,8 13,6 15,9 16,2 15,2 13,3 16,3 13,8
Fairly 26,2 23,6 21,2 27,3 22,6 21,6 19,7 25,7 29,9 25,6 22,6 28,9
Very 43,4 49,2 42,0 43,2 48,8 48,4 44,0 42,9 37,8 50,0 40,0 43,5
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 Parliament
Not at all 2,4 1,9 1,6 0,7 2,2 2,9 2,1 0,7 2,6 0,9 1,2 0,6
A little 14,5 12,3 19,0 13,1 14,6 13,8 17,8 13,3 14,4 10,7 20,2 12,8
Moderately 13,0 12,7 15,8 14,4 12,2 13,3 16,3 14,9 13,8 12,0 15,3 13,8
Fairly 27,1 24,2 21,1 26,3 23,0 21,1 19,6 25,9 31,3 27,4 22,7 26,6
Very 42,9 48,9 42,4 45,6 48,0 48,8 44,2 45,1 37,9 49,1 40,6 46,2
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
FBiH Government
Not at all 2,6 2,0 1,5 0,8 2,2 3,2 1,7 1,1 3,0 0,8 1,4 0,6
A little 14,2 11,9 17,6 12,1 13,8 13,0 16,7 12,1 14,6 10,7 18,5 12,1
Moderately 13,0 12,4 16,3 15,3 12,4 12,9 17,6 16,7 13,7 11,8 15,1 13,9
Fairly 27,4 24,0 20,5 25,5 23,4 21,5 18,0 24,3 31,3 26,6 23,0 26,6
Very 42,8 49,7 44,0 46,3 48,2 49,4 46,0 45,8 37,4 50,1 42,0 46,8
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
Not at all 3,1 2,2 2,4 1,2 3,0 3,6 2,5 1,8 3,2 0,8 2,3 0,6
A little 13,6 10,9 17,2 11,8 12,1 12,1 16,5 11,8 15,1 9,7 17,9 11,7
Moderately 12,9 12,8 14,6 14,5 12,6 12,0 16,5 15,3 13,3 13,6 12,7 13,8
Fairly 25,8 24,2 20,9 26,0 23,2 22,9 18,3 25,3 28,4 25,4 23,5 26,6
Very 44,6 49,9 44,9 46,5 49,2 49,4 46,3 45,7 39,9 50,5 43,6 47,3
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
RS Government
Not at all 3,0 2,4 2,4 0,9 2,6 3,9 2,8 1,5 3,4 0,8 2,0 0,3
A little 13,1 10,9 16,8 12,5 12,5 11,6 15,3 13,1 13,6 10,2 18,3 12,0
Moderately 13,5 12,7 13,1 14,0 12,6 11,8 14,0 13,8 14,4 13,5 12,3 14,1
Fairly 26,3 23,7 21,4 26,1 24,3 22,9 19,2 26,0 28,3 24,5 23,5 26,2
Very 44,2 50,3 46,3 46,5 48,0 49,8 48,8 45,7 40,3 50,9 43,9 47,3
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
Not at all 2,1 2,0 2,8 1,2 2,1 2,8 2,3 1,3 2,0 1,3 3,2 1,1
A little 13,9 11,8 16,1 15,0 13,0 12,1 14,4 16,2 14,8 11,4 17,8 13,8
Moderately 18,0 15,9 16,8 17,3 18,0 15,0 19,0 16,9 18,0 16,9 14,5 17,7
Fairly 25,8 21,9 22,1 26,8 23,8 20,8 19,5 27,2 27,8 22,9 24,6 26,3
Very 40,2 48,4 42,3 39,8 43,0 49,3 44,7 38,4 37,4 47,5 39,8 41,1
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
Table IVb 15
Annual Report 2008

Gender
All Male Female
OSCE
Not at all 12,1 8,9 8,7 9,1 12,1 10,5 7,8 8,4 12,1 7,4 9,5 9,9
A little 18,0 14,5 21,2 19,6 18,5 15,4 20,1 19,6 17,6 13,5 22,3 19,5
Moderately 24,9 24,0 24,2 24,9 25,7 24,6 26,2 25,4 24,2 23,5 22,3 24,3
Fairly 17,6 17,0 19,5 21,4 14,6 16,6 17,0 22,4 20,5 17,4 21,8 20,5
Very 27,4 35,6 26,4 25,0 29,1 32,9 29,0 24,2 25,6 38,2 24,0 25,8
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
OHR
Not at all 13,8 9,9 9,2 10,3 13,4 11,6 7,4 9,2 14,2 8,2 11,0 11,3
A little 19,4 13,6 21,6 19,6 19,4 14,5 21,0 19,2 19,3 12,8 22,3 20,0
Moderately 25,2 23,9 23,9 24,6 24,1 23,2 25,4 26,5 26,3 24,7 22,4 22,6
Fairly 16,3 18,7 19,8 21,8 14,1 19,9 18,4 21,9 18,5 17,4 21,2 21,7
Very 25,4 33,9 25,4 23,8 29,0 30,8 27,8 23,2 21,7 36,9 23,2 24,3
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
UNDP
Not at all 13,5 10,2 8,8 10,8 13,1 11,5 6,7 10,4 13,8 8,9 10,8 11,3
A little 21,6 13,9 22,9 21,7 21,1 15,0 21,0 22,5 22,0 12,8 24,8 21,0
Moderately 25,6 23,5 23,2 23,1 24,2 22,9 25,3 23,2 27,0 24,0 21,3 22,9
Fairly 15,1 19,3 19,0 21,9 13,5 21,0 17,6 22,2 16,7 17,5 20,3 21,7
Very 24,3 33,2 26,1 22,4 28,1 29,5 29,6 21,7 20,5 36,7 22,8 23,2
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
EU
Not at all 13,5 10,7 9,0 9,7 12,9 12,8 7,3 10,2 14,0 8,7 10,6 9,2
A little 20,9 13,8 23,1 22,4 21,7 14,9 21,7 22,1 20,1 12,8 24,4 22,7
Moderately 25,5 24,8 23,4 24,0 23,5 23,6 24,0 24,6 27,4 25,9 22,9 23,3
Fairly 15,2 17,7 18,6 21,5 13,2 19,0 17,3 21,7 17,1 16,4 19,8 21,3
Very 24,9 33,1 25,9 22,4 28,6 29,7 29,7 21,3 21,4 36,3 22,4 23,4
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
Not at all 13,6 10,3 9,1 14,1 13,2 11,5 7,2 15,3 13,9 9,2 10,9 12,9
A little 21,0 14,9 23,5 48,5 21,6 17,3 21,8 46,9 20,3 12,6 25,2 50,2
Moderately 25,1 24,2 22,5 29,1 23,0 23,0 23,6 29,3 27,1 25,4 21,5 28,8
Fairly 15,7 17,5 19,1 8,3 14,2 18,7 17,6 8,5 17,2 16,4 20,5 8,1
Very 24,6 33,0 25,7 27,9 29,4 29,8 21,4 36,4 21,8
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
16 Table Va
Annual Report 2008

BiH Presidency
Not at all 3,1 2,6 4,1 4,0 3,3 1,0 2,9 0,4 3,9 2,4 0,8 0,9
A little 15,2 9,1 15,6 12,6 18,5 12,3 20,8 18,3 23,0 16,5 28,7 20,7
Moderately 11,2 13,9 11,6 12,8 25,2 20,5 27,2 14,8 11,2 12,9 17,0 15,1
Fairly 16,9 14,7 15,7 20,9 24,4 45,5 28,0 34,5 27,9 21,2 22,2 28,7
Very 53,6 59,7 53,0 49,7 28,6 20,7 21,2 32,1 34,0 46,9 31,3 34,7
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
BiH Parliament
Not at all 0,8 2,6 2,2 1,8 2,4 1,3 1,3 1,1 3,7 2,0 0,8 0,7
A little 8,6 7,2 12,9 9,3 17,8 9,8 17,2 16,3 22,4 17,0 27,9 19,2
Moderately 11,0 12,3 11,8 13,4 26,8 21,8 30,7 16,2 11,7 13,2 16,4 15,6
Fairly 23,2 17,8 16,4 22,6 24,5 46,3 24,2 35,6 29,6 21,1 22,8 29,9
Very 56,4 60,2 56,8 52,8 28,4 20,8 26,6 30,7 32,6 46,6 32,1 34,7
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
Not at all 0,6 2,6 1,9 1,8 3,2 1,0 1,9 0,4 3,5 1,7 0,8 0,7
A little 8,0 7,2 12,5 7,6 15,2 9,3 15,0 11,3 21,4 16,9 27,6 19,5
Moderately 8,8 11,5 10,4 12,6 28,5 21,6 30,2 21,6 12,5 12,0 16,4 14,7
Fairly 24,5 16,5 18,4 22,8 25,4 46,3 28,1 34,2 28,3 23,8 22,4 30,6
Very 58,1 62,3 56,8 55,2 27,7 21,8 24,8 32,6 34,4 45,6 32,9 34,5
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 Parliament
Not at all 0,6 2,3 2,7 0,9 2,7 1,3 1,3 0,8 3,9 1,7 0,6 0,4
A little 8,0 7,0 11,1 7,8 18,3 11,0 15,7 12,2 20,5 17,4 28,4 18,3
Moderately 8,1 11,0 11,0 10,7 26,4 19,1 27,3 19,9 12,5 11,5 16,7 16,5
Fairly 25,6 16,7 17,4 21,1 26,4 47,3 28,4 33,5 29,3 24,8 22,3 29,8
Very 57,7 63,0 57,8 59,5 26,1 21,2 27,3 33,7 33,8 44,6 31,9 35,0
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
FBiH Government
Not at all 0,6 2,0 2,5 0,9 2,5 2,1 1,4 1,2 4,9 1,9 0,6 0,7
A little 8,6 7,3 9,1 7,5 16,5 8,6 14,5 10,8 20,0 16,7 27,5 17,3
Moderately 7,9 10,2 11,3 11,1 26,9 19,1 28,0 22,3 12,3 12,0 17,3 17,4
Fairly 25,5 16,4 16,4 19,6 26,4 47,9 30,2 32,5 29,6 24,5 21,6 29,6
Very 57,4 64,1 60,8 60,9 27,7 22,3 25,9 33,2 33,2 44,9 33,0 35,0
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
Not at all 0,6 2,5 2,3 0,5 2,4 1,0 1,4 0,8 5,7 2,3 3,0 2,2
A little 5,5 5,7 5,1 6,6 13,7 5,9 14,2 6,3 22,7 17,9 30,3 19,3
Moderately 6,7 9,9 11,6 9,9 24,5 17,5 21,8 16,5 14,5 14,2 14,9 17,5
Fairly 23,2 15,4 18,0 18,4 25,1 50,1 31,3 34,9 28,7 25,0 20,6 31,3
Very 64,1 66,5 63,0 64,6 34,3 25,6 31,4 41,5 28,4 40,6 31,3 29,7
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
RS Government
Not at all 0,6 2,5 1,9 0,5 2,3 0,5 1,4 0,8 5,5 2,9 3,3 1,5
A little 5,0 5,8 5,1 7,2 12,3 5,3 13,7 6,8 22,3 17,9 29,5 20,2
Moderately 6,5 9,6 9,1 9,6 24,3 20,7 23,9 15,1 16,1 13,2 13,7 16,8
Fairly 23,2 15,2 19,1 18,6 26,5 48,7 29,6 34,3 29,2 24,7 21,1 32,0
Very 64,6 66,9 64,8 64,1 34,6 24,8 31,4 43,0 26,9 41,3 32,5 29,5
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
Not at all 0,6 2,4 3,5 1,0 2,8 0,8 2,2 0,4 3,3 1,8 2,3 1,8
A little 8,8 7,1 8,9 10,6 12,3 12,1 14,1 8,6 20,2 16,0 23,9 19,7
Moderately 13,3 11,6 13,3 16,4 29,0 26,4 23,5 21,8 19,0 16,9 17,6 16,6
Fairly 23,2 16,5 17,6 21,4 27,1 37,8 29,0 36,1 27,7 22,2 25,0 30,5
Very 54,1 62,5 56,7 50,6 28,7 22,8 31,1 33,1 29,8 43,1 31,2 31,4
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
Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research
Table Vb 17
Annual Report 2008


OSCE
Not at all 16,1 6,5 14,0 13,3 7,3 7,7 3,2 7,5 7,4 11,4 5,0 3,8
A little 14,1 12,6 14,4 17,6 21,5 23,0 25,4 18,5 20,3 12,7 24,9 19,0
Moderately 25,7 26,1 28,5 33,4 30,4 29,7 24,0 18,5 22,0 19,0 19,9 17,9
Fairly 11,9 10,8 16,1 14,6 20,0 26,3 21,4 30,0 24,3 20,9 23,0 28,0
Very 32,2 44,1 26,9 21,0 20,8 13,3 25,9 25,5 25,9 36,1 27,2 31,3
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
OHR
Not at all 17,5 7,3 14,9 15,1 9,9 8,1 3,8 8,9 9,0 13,1 5,2 4,3
A little 15,9 12,7 16,2 19,4 24,9 21,8 25,5 17,1 20,7 10,6 23,9 17,5
Moderately 27,2 25,1 27,5 32,2 26,7 30,4 22,5 16,2 22,4 19,2 20,6 19,6
Fairly 10,3 14,2 17,5 15,0 19,9 27,4 22,5 32,7 22,9 20,7 22,3 27,6
Very 29,0 40,7 24,0 18,4 18,6 12,3 25,7 25,2 25,2 36,4 27,9 31,1
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
UNDP
Not at all 16,8 7,2 13,2 15,9 9,6 8,6 4,7 8,2 9,0 13,7 5,6 4,9
A little 19,6 12,0 18,2 21,2 24,5 22,7 27,8 20,3 22,3 11,8 24,1 20,0
Moderately 26,2 23,6 28,0 30,6 28,1 31,7 22,8 15,1 24,0 19,4 18,4 17,8
Fairly 8,6 16,7 15,4 15,7 19,4 25,8 21,3 32,2 21,9 20,0 22,8 27,1
Very 28,8 40,6 25,2 16,6 18,5 11,2 23,3 24,2 22,9 35,1 29,2 30,2
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
EU
Not at all 16,8 8,6 14,2 12,7 10,4 6,1 4,8 8,8 8,7 14,3 5,1 6,0
A little 19,2 11,4 16,4 23,0 20,7 24,3 29,9 20,2 22,3 11,7 25,5 21,0
Moderately 25,9 26,4 29,6 32,3 30,5 32,9 21,3 14,5 23,3 19,1 17,8 18,0
Fairly 8,5 13,2 15,2 15,9 19,5 24,8 21,0 31,4 22,3 20,3 22,1 25,1
Very 29,6 40,5 24,7 16,1 18,9 11,9 23,1 25,2 23,4 34,6 29,5 29,9
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
Not at all 16,8 7,8 14,6 15,7 10,4 6,5 4,8 15,8 9,0 14,0 5,1 7,3
A little 19,2 12,6 17,5 44,5 23,6 25,0 30,1 36,4 21,5 13,0 25,3 58,1
Moderately 25,8 26,0 27,3 30,3 27,9 31,5 22,0 42,9 23,3 18,7 17,8 26,2
Fairly 8,2 13,0 15,7 9,5 19,9 24,8 21,1 4,8 23,7 20,2 22,9 8,4
Very 29,9 40,6 24,9 18,2 12,2 22,1 22,6 34,1 29,0
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
Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research
18 Table VI
Annual Report 2008
How would you assess measures taken by the High Representative in the following areas? (%)
Gender
All Male Female
Political reforms
Very positive 10,1 8,7 4,7 4,9 12,3 9,8 5,5 4,1 8,0 7,7 3,9 5,7
Generally positive 36,2 32,8 32,1 35,8 33,0 34,4 31,2 38,9 39,3 31,2 32,9 32,8
Generally negative 24,6 29,1 29,5 28,9 28,0 31,2 30,9 26,5 21,4 27,1 28,2 31,1
Very negative 15,0 13,0 16,9 11,8 15,9 14,6 17,2 13,0 14,1 11,5 16,7 10,5
DK/NA 14,1 16,4 16,8 18,7 10,8 9,9 15,3 17,5 17,3 22,5 18,3 19,9
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
Political reforms
TOTAL POSITIVE 46,3 41,5 36,7 40,6 45,3 44,3 36,7 42,9 47,3 38,9 36,8 38,4
TOTAL NEGATIVE 39,6 42,1 46,4 40,6 43,9 45,8 48,0 39,5 35,5 38,6 44,9 41,6
DK/NA 14,1 16,4 16,8 18,7 10,8 9,9 15,3 17,5 17,3 22,5 18,3 19,9
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
Economic reforms
Very positive 9,9 7,9 4,5 4,1 11,3 9,0 4,8 3,5 8,5 6,9 4,2 4,7
Very negative 13,7 12,0 16,9 12,3 14,7 13,2 17,5 13,8 12,7 10,8 16,4 10,8
DK/NA 14,3 16,2 16,2 19,1 10,5 10,0 14,7 17,9 17,9 22,2 17,6 20,1
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
Economic reforms
TOTAL POSITIVE 44,5 41,2 34,0 36,9 43,4 42,6 33,4 37,6 45,5 39,8 34,7 36,2
TOTAL NEGATIVE 41,2 42,6 49,8 44,0 46,0 47,5 51,9 44,5 36,6 38,0 47,8 43,7
DK/NA 14,3 16,2 16,2 19,1 10,5 10,0 14,7 17,9 17,9 22,2 17,6 20,1
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
Anti-corruption
Very positive 10,1 8,2 4,8 4,1 11,9 8,9 5,1 4,3 8,3 7,4 4,4 4,0
Very negative 17,1 15,7 19,9 19,0 18,4 17,8 19,6 18,6 15,9 13,8 20,1 19,2
DK/NA 13,6 15,6 15,3 18,4 10,4 9,4 14,1 17,4 16,6 21,5 16,4 19,3
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
Anti-corruption
TOTAL POSITIVE 42,9 37,2 31,8 33,7 43,3 38,0 31,6 34,5 42,5 36,5 32,0 33,0
TOTAL NEGATIVE 43,5 47,2 52,9 47,9 46,2 52,6 54,3 48,1 40,9 42,1 51,5 47,7
DK/NA 13,6 15,6 15,3 18,4 10,4 9,4 14,1 17,4 16,6 21,5 16,4 19,3
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
Civil service reforms
Very positive 10,0 8,3 3,7 4,9 11,9 8,3 3,6 4,5 8,2 8,3 3,9 5,2
Very negative 14,0 11,3 17,1 12,5 15,2 13,1 18,3 14,6 12,9 9,5 16,0 10,6
DK/NA 14,9 16,9 17,5 19,0 11,3 10,8 16,1 17,9 18,3 22,8 18,7 20,0
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
TOTAL POSITIVE 46,7 44,5 36,7 41,7 46,9 46,6 34,7 41,3 46,6 42,5 38,6 42,2
TOTAL NEGATIVE 38,4 38,6 45,9 39,3 41,8 42,6 49,2 40,8 35,2 34,8 42,7 37,9
DK/NA 14,9 16,9 17,5 19,0 11,3 10,8 16,1 17,9 18,3 22,8 18,7 20,0
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
Table VII 19
Annual Report 2008

How would you assess measures taken by the High Representative in the following areas?

% % % % % % % % % % % %
Political reforms
Very positive 18,5 16,4 9,2 8,2 7,7 0,7 3,4 1,7 3,2 1,1 0,6
Very negative 7,3 8,2 12,4 8,4 11,5 13,2 14,0 5,0 23,5 17,3 23,7 18,4
DK/NA 13,6 19,8 15,2 13,1 27,4 11,8 22,7 32,9 11,2 14,4 17,7 22,4
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
Political reforms
TOTAL POSITIVE 62,2 55,3 48,1 56,3 40,8 37,6 30,2 33,4 29,3 27,7 26,7 21,7
TOTAL NEGATIVE 24,3 24,8 36,7 30,6 31,8 50,6 47,1 33,6 59,6 57,9 55,6 55,9
DK/NA 13,6 19,8 15,2 13,1 27,4 11,8 22,7 32,9 11,2 14,4 17,7 22,4
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
Economic reforms
Very positive 17,5 14,6 8,9 6,7 6,9 0,7 3,0 2,5 3,3 0,9 0,9
Very negative 8,4 8,6 12,7 9,3 10,0 15,3 14,6 6,6 19,9 13,4 22,0 17,9
DK/NA 13,8 20,0 15,2 14,1 28,0 11,8 21,2 32,9 11,0 13,9 16,6 22,1
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
Economic reforms
TOTAL POSITIVE 57,1 49,4 44,1 49,6 37,5 38,3 30,6 30,5 32,2 33,3 24,8 22,3
TOTAL NEGATIVE 29,1 30,6 40,8 36,3 34,5 49,9 48,1 36,6 56,8 52,8 58,6 55,7
DK/NA 13,8 20,0 15,2 14,1 28,0 11,8 21,2 32,9 11,0 13,9 16,6 22,1
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
Anti-corruption
Very positive 17,6 14,9 6,8 6,7 8,2 1,5 2,8 2,6 3,6 3,7 0,9
Very negative 10,8 11,3 14,0 15,9 16,2 25,7 24,0 15,0 23,6 16,5 24,4 23,5
DK/NA 13,6 19,6 15,3 13,1 27,5 10,5 19,0 32,4 9,7 13,1 15,0 21,6
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
Anti-corruption
TOTAL POSITIVE 56,1 47,6 36,6 43,8 35,3 21,1 26,5 27,3 32,0 31,1 29,7 23,0
TOTAL NEGATIVE 30,3 32,8 48,1 43,1 37,2 68,4 54,6 40,3 58,2 55,8 55,3 55,4
DK/NA 13,6 19,6 15,3 13,1 27,5 10,5 19,0 32,4 9,7 13,1 15,0 21,6
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
Very positive 17,1 13,5 6,9 7,4 8,0 0,3 0,9 3,3 3,0 5,4 1,2 1,6
Very negative 10,1 8,8 14,1 9,0 13,9 14,5 16,1 8,2 17,1 11,6 20,0 16,9
DK/NA 13,8 19,8 15,4 13,4 28,2 12,9 21,6 32,9 12,4 15,5 19,4 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 POSITIVE 59,2 53,8 44,5 56,4 35,8 34,3 28,0 27,8 36,4 38,1 32,3 28,0
TOTAL NEGATIVE 26,9 26,4 40,1 30,2 36,0 52,9 50,4 39,3 51,2 46,5 48,3 49,4
DK/NA 13,8 19,8 15,4 13,4 28,2 12,9 21,6 32,9 12,4 15,5 19,4 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
20 Table VIII
Annual Report 2008
In your view, should the High Representative’s powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)
Gender
All Male Female
Reduced 38,3 43,5 43,9 37,6 41,3 42,9 45,7 39,6 35,5 44,2 42,2 35,7
Increased 29,5 15,4 18,9 23,1 31,8 19,7 21,8 23,1 27,3 11,2 16,0 23,2
Stay the same 21,8 30,8 26,7 30,7 19,5 30,2 24,7 30,5 24,1 31,3 28,6 30,9
DK/NA 10,3 10,3 10,6 8,5 7,4 7,2 7,8 6,8 13,2 13,3 13,2 10,1
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
Table IX
In your view, should the High Representative’s powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)

Reduced 13,9 23,3 22,6 10,9 29,0 40,2 42,2 28,9 71,2 69,9 69,9 71,6
Increased 49,2 25,9 33,1 41,9 32,6 15,5 16,2 18,9 4,3 1,7 2,8 2,9
Stay the same 24,2 33,8 29,7 40,0 22,7 39,8 36,1 31,9 18,3 23,5 20,0 19,1
DK/NA 12,7 17,0 14,5 7,2 15,7 4,5 5,4 20,2 6,2 5,0 7,3 6,4
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
ECONOMIC STABILITY 21
Annual Report 2008

Economic Stability Index
Table I
Index of the physical volume of industrial production

in BiH

98,2 109,6 105,4
100,2 109,4 107,8
Table II
Total number of registered unemployed by entity
Jan-05 Jan-06 Mar-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jun-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Jan-08 Mar-08 Aug-08 Women
FBiH 328.225 349.137 351.867 367.449 371.156 370.961 370.410 369.886 371.342 367.449 357.281 340809 173,837
REPUBLIKA SRPSKA 144.823 142.754 145.331 146.180 146.517 144.306 140.189 136.520 134.197 136.108 138.497 133.827 64,069
BiH 473.048 491.891 497.198 513.629 517.673 515.267 510.599 506.406 505.539 503.557 495.778 474636 237,906
22 Table III Table IV
Annual Report 2008
Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices Central Bank of BiH Foreign Reserves (millions of KM)
VIII 2008 VIII 2008 I- VIII 2008
Month Reserves Month Reserves
VII 2008 VIII 2007 I- VIII 2007
XII '03 2,781 VIII 6,298
FBiH 98.2 109.6 105.4
I '04 2,785 IX 6,475
RS 100.2 109.4 107.8
XII '04 3,458 X 6,518
Sources: Entity Statistics Agencies websites I '05 3,451 XI 6413
XII '05 4,196 I 2008 6637
I '06 4,233 V 6,480
XII '06 5,400 VI 6531
Table V
I 2007 5,137 VII 6699
Balance of Trade of BIH II 5,519 VIII 6805
III 5,289 IX 6834
IX 2008 I – IX 2008 I – IX 2008 IV 5,699 X 6403
I – IX 2007 V 5,751 XI 6228
Exports 617 5.147 + 16,7 % VI 5,899 XII 6296
Imports 1,476 12,337 + 22,3 % VII 6,203
Total volum 2,093 17,484 -
Balance -859 -7,19 -
Ratio -
41.80% 41.70%
Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priopćenje statistike vanjske trgovine, no. 9,
Year IV, October 2008
Table VI
Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how?
BiH April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
% % % % % % % % % % %
Got better 9,2 10,8 11,4 15,3 14,1 18,1 12,5 13,5 14,0 15,5 10,8
Stayed the same 55,1 54,1 57,6 61,4 61,0 55,8 47,7 51,5 51,5 57,1 53,8
Got worse 35,1 34,7 30,7 23,1 23,1 24,0 38,9 34,3 33,7 27,0 34,5
N.A. 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,1 1,8 2,2 1,0 0,7 0,7 0,3 1,0
TOTAL 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table VII
Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how? (%)
FBH April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Better 11,6 13,0 11,5 17,0 14,6 15,0 12,1 12,2 16,3 14,6 10,2
The same 52,7 53,7 59,5 59,2 63,7 58,3 44,2 49,2 52,1 56,8 51,9
Worse 35,1 32,6 28,9 23,7 20,0 23,5 42,2 37,5 30,7 28,5 36,7
N.A. 0,7 0,6 0,2 0,1 1,7 3,1 1,4 1,1 0,9 0,2 1,1
Total 100,1 99,9 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
RS April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Better 5,9 7,1 11,3 13,2 13,3 22,3 13,4 15,6 11,2 17,5 9,4
The same 58,9 54,6 54,5 64,6 56,8 52,2 53,2 54,8 51,4 59,7 58,2
Worse 34,8 38,3 33,6 22,1 27,9 24,9 33,0 29,3 37,0 22,2 31,6
N.A. 0,4 0,0 0,6 0,2 2,0 0,7 0,4 0,2 0,5 0,6 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
DB April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Better 5,8 21,9 9,6 8,8 15,3 22,4 3,9 9,7 6,6 17,5 43,8
The same 52,2 54,4 64,3 62,9 65,5 52,5 38,1 49,9 37,8 59,7 28,0
Worse 42,0 23,7 26,1 28,3 19,2 20,1 57,9 40,4 55,7 22,2 25,4
N.A. 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 4,9 0,6 2,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research
Table VIII 23
Annual Report 2008

Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how? (%)
Bosniaks April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Better 10.2 11.9 10.6 16.4 13.7 14.1 11.9 10.3 17.8 13.1 8.7
The same 53.6 52.2 58.1 60.3 64.7 59.0 44.5 47.3 48.3 54.8 49.7
Worse 35.5 35.3 31.1 23.2 19.5 24.5 41.7 41.5 33.0 32.1 40.5
N.A. 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.2 2.4 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Croats April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Better 16.7 16.7 14.6 18.7 18.1 18.3 12.7 18.6 11.0 19.9 16.3
The same 49.6 59.1 64.2 55.6 60.3 55.9 43.4 56.1 65.5 63.7 60.8
Worse 33.6 23.4 20.9 25.5 21.7 20.2 43.9 23.6 22.6 15.6 22.0
N.A. 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 5.6 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.9
Total 100.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Serbs April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Better 5.9 7.1 11.3 13.2 13.3 22.3 13.4 15.6 11.2 17.5 9.4
The same 58.9 54.6 54.5 64.6 56.8 52.2 53.2 54.8 51.4 59.7 58.2
Worse 34.8 38.3 33.6 22.1 27.9 24.9 33.0 29.3 37.0 22.2 31.6
N.A. 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 2.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.6 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
Table IX
How do you expect your family finances to change over the next year? (%)
BiH April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Get worse 18,8 23,4 20,4 15,9 12,2 18,0 35,2 20,2 22,5 16,1 24,5
Stay the same 56,4 50,0 52,4 52,0 56,5 54,1 45,7 56,2 56,1 62,0 55,4
Get better 20,8 21,1 23,4 29,4 24,3 21,5 14,4 20,0 17,2 17,2 15,0
N.A. 4,1 5,5 3,8 2,7 7,0 6,4 4,7 3,6 4,3 4,7 5,1
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
FBH Mar. 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Get worse 18,2 22,3 17,0 18,0 10,4 16,7 41,5 19,0 21,1 16,4 27,1
Stay the same 59,1 49,1 55,1 51,8 59,3 54,1 42,2 59,9 56,6 66,2 58,6
Get better 17,8 20,7 23,4 26,8 21,3 21,4 12,3 17,5 16,8 13,3 9,6
N.A. 4,8 7,9 4,5 3,5 9,0 7,8 4,0 3,5 5,5 4,1 4,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
RS Mar. 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Get worse 17,6 25,5 25,4 11,9 14,3 20,5 25,3 20,7 23,6 15,3 21,8
Stay the same 53,3 50,9 48,6 52,5 52,5 52,4 50,9 51,0 55,5 55,0 52,2
Get better 26,2 21,5 23,5 34,0 28,8 22,3 17,7 24,4 18,3 23,8 20,2
N.A. 2,9 2,2 2,5 1,5 4,4 4,7 6,1 3,9 2,6 6,0 5,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
DB Mar. 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Get worse 54,4 16,2 21,4 33,7 25,2 6,5 46,1 41,3 39,4 24,2 4,5
Stay the same 37,7 57,5 50,4 48,9 52,3 86,0 46,0 50,7 51,1 75,8 31,2
Get better 2,4 25,7 20,7 16,7 21,3 7,5 7,9 8,0 4,6 61,4
N.A. 5,5 0,7 7,5 0,8 1,2 4,8 2,8
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table X
Expect prices over the next six months to...I? (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Fall significantly 1,1 0,8 0,2 0,5 1,4 0,7 0,6 2,2 0,6
Fall modestly 3,9 6,0 2,0 3,6 5,4 4,0 1,8 7,6 8,1
Rise modestly 37,8 42,3 37,8 37,1 22,3 35,2 29,7 33,4 36,5
Rise significantly 16,9 20,5 22,4 50,6 65,2 48,6 51,4 38,4 38,4
No Change 33,7 25,5 26,0 2,9 3,8 7,9 11,5 13,1 11,6
N.A. 6,7 4,9 11,6 5,4 1,9 3,6 4,9 5,2 4,9
Total fall 5,0 6,8 2,2 4,1 6,7 4,7 2,5 9,8 8,7
Total rise 54,7 62,8 60,2 87,6 87,5 83,8 81,1 71,8 74,9
No Change 33,7 25,5 26,0 2,9 3,8 7,9 11,5 13,1 11,6
NZ/BO 6,7 4,9 11,6 5,4 1,9 3,6 4,9 5,2 4,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
24 Table XI
Annual Report 2008
Expect household income over the next six months to...? (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Fall significantly 4.9 3.1 1.8 2.3 7.1 6.2 3.8 4.0
Fall modestly 9.5 10.3 8.7 9.7 9.8 6.2 7.3 9.2 11.8
Rise modestly 15.8 19.8 18.1 19.5 15.1 17.6 15.0 19.1 15.0
Fall modestly 2.5 1.7 3.9 4.3 2.8 3.8 3.5 3.7 6.0
No change 59.7 59.2 55.6 54.0 58.0 60.0 63.0 58.0 62.6
DK/NA 7.5 6.0 12.0 10.3 7.3 6.2 7.3 6.0 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total fall 14.4 13.3 10.4 12.0 16.9 12.4 11.1 13.2 11.8
Total rise 18.3 21.5 22.0 23.8 17.9 21.4 18.5 22.8 20.9
No change 59.7 59.2 55.6 54.0 58.0 60.0 63.0 58.0 62.6
DK/NA 7.5 6.0 12.0 10.3 7.3 6.2 7.3 6.0 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
FBiH Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Fall modestly 8.5 12.3 8.6 9.5 10.7 5.2 5.6 9.0 14.2
Rise modestly 15.0 18.0 16.0 18.8 13.1 16.6 12.5 16.6 12.2
Fall modestly 2.8 1.0 4.2 4.2 3.2 3.8 4.2 4.4 6.1
No change 60.2 58.0 52.9 50.2 56.6 61.1 66.7 58.7 62.8
DK/NA 7.6 7.5 15.9 15.0 8.2 7.4 8.2 6.8 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total fall 14.4 15.5 11.0 11.7 19.0 11.1 8.5 13.4 14.2
Total rise 17.8 19.0 20.2 23.1 16.2 20.4 16.6 21.1 18.4
No change 60.2 58.0 52.9 50.2 56.6 61.1 66.7 58.7 62.8
DK/NA 7.6 7.5 15.9 15.0 8.2 7.4 8.2 6.8 4.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
REPUBLIKA SRPSKA Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Fall modestly 11.2 7.3 9.3 10.6 9.0 7.9 9.6 9.9 8.9
Rise modestly 17.4 22.8 22.1 20.8 18.2 19.7 19.5 23.7 19.6
Fall modestly 2.3 2.9 3.2 4.1 2.3 3.5 2.7 2.8 6.0
No change 58.1 60.2 58.0 58.2 58.7 57.9 56.5 55.0 60.6
DK/NA 7.6 4.1 6.6 3.8 6.3 4.5 6.4 5.2 4.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total fall 14.6 10.0 10.1 13.1 14.4 14.4 14.8 13.3 8.9
Total rise 19.8 25.7 25.2 24.9 20.5 23.2 22.2 26.5 25.6
No change 58.1 60.2 58.0 58.2 58.7 57.9 56.5 55.0 60.6
DK/NA 7.6 4.1 6.6 3.8 6.3 4.5 6.4 5.2 4.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
BRČKO Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Fall significantly 8.4 6.7 0.8 4.6 11.4 4.1 0.7
Fall modestly 3.4 8.7 1.2 10.3 4.4 2.1
Rise modestly 5.6 11.9 4.6 11.7 13.9 8.2 5.8
Fall modestly 8.4 10.8 7.9 3.1 0.5 2.8
No change 78.5 72.7 82.8 77.5 81.5 67.4 82.5 94.4 89.3
DK/NA 4.2 3.4 3.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total fall 11.8 15.4 0.8 4.6 12.6 14.4 5.1 2.1
Total rise 5.6 11.9 13.0 22.5 13.9 16.1 3.1 0.5 8.6
No change 78.5 72.7 82.8 77.5 81.5 67.4 82.5 94.4 89.3
DK/NA 4.2 3.4 3.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table XII 25
Annual Report 2008

Do you expect to be able to save money over the coming year?
BIH Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
% % % % % % % % %
Yes 9.1 15.0 11.5 13.6 12.1 11.8 9.6 8.0 6.6
No 82.2 80.6 82.5 80.4 84.0 83.3 83.8 85.3 88.8
DK 8.8 4.4 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.9 6.5 6.6 4.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
FBIH Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Yes 11.1 14.5 10.0 14.9 11.9 11.2 11.3 7.1 6.3
No 78.3 80.0 82.5 78.2 82.7 85.6 81.2 85.0 88.2
DK 10.6 5.5 7.5 6.9 5.3 3.2 7.5 7.9 5.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
RS Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Yes 5.8 16.5 14.3 12.4 12.8 12.7 6.9 9.7 7.5
No 87.6 80.5 81.7 82.7 85.1 79.8 87.7 85.4 89.1
DK 6.6 3.0 4.0 4.9 2.2 7.4 5.4 4.9 3.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
DB Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. 2008
Yes 15.2 1.5 3.9 8.1 15.1 2.1 0.4
No 84.8 96.9 96.6 100.0 96.1 87.8 82.7 94.7 99.6
DK 1.6 3.4 4.1 2.2 3.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table XIII
How much does the current institutional framework in BiH (how public administration is organized and functions)
affect your activities with regard to ...?
BiH FBiH RS D Brcko

Jun. 08 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 Jun. 08 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 Jun. 08 Sept. '08 Nov. '08 Jun. 08 Sept. '08 Nov. '08
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Money
More than it should 54.4 50.0 57.0 46.6 50.8 59.0 67.3 46.6 55.4 24.7 91.2 35.9
Less than it might 22.3 29.0 25.0 25.8 28.4 20.1 16.2 30.9 29.8 37.5 8.8 64.1
DK 23.4 21.0 18.0 27.5 20.7 20.8 16.5 22.5 14.8 37.8
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
Time More than it should 53.2 47.3 56.1 46.2 47.9 59.9 64.9 44.0 51.2 27.3 91.4 41.0
Less than it might 22.5 31.2 25.7 25.9 30.8 19.5 16.6 32.9 32.9 37.5 8.6 59.0
DK 24.3 21.6 18.2 27.9 21.3 20.6 18.5 23.0 15.8 35.2
26 Table XIV
Annual Report 2008
How good do you think the following institutions are at their job? (%)
BiH FBiH RS D Brcko

VI 08 IX '08 XI '08 VI 08 IX '08 XI '08 VI 08 IX '08 XI '08 VI 08 IX '08 XI '08
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Central Bank of BiH
Good 47.8 50.4 40.5 52.7 50.8 33.0 40.4 48.6 49.5 53.5 73.2 75.1
Bad 26.2 26.3 39.3 23.7 25.6 44.8 29.1 27.6 32.0 41.6 24.1 24.9
DK 25.9 23.2 20.2 23.6 23.7 22.1 30.5 23.8 18.5 4.8 2.7
Indirect Taxation Authority
Good 39.8 39.6 39.3 42.9 33.8 31.1 35.7 48.2 49.7 32.0 37.1 67.4
Bad 36.1 38.7 42.0 34.5 42.3 49.4 37.0 32.4 31.5 63.1 60.1 32.6
DK 24.1 21.7 18.7 22.7 24.0 19.5 27.2 19.4 18.7 4.8 2.7
Entity Tax Administrations
Bad 36.9 37.3 33.0 39.0 30.6 26.5 33.5 47.2 40.2 41.7 33.9 72.3
DK 39.6 42.3 49.4 38.1 47.4 54.6 41.0 33.6 42.9 55.9 64.1 27.7
Good 23.5 20.4 17.6 22.9 22.0 18.9 25.5 19.2 16.9 2.4 2.1
Judicial System
DK 33.9 32.4 33.4 35.6 27.0 29.5 30.5 40.6 36.9 49.4 27.6 70.9
Good 45.2 50.2 36.3 43.8 53.5 40.2 47.2 44.1 30.9 48.2 72.4 29.1
Bad 20.9 17.4 30.2 20.6 19.5 30.2 22.2 15.4 32.2 2.4
Directorate for European Integration
Good 39.3 33.7 30.0 40.3 29.5 26.4 38.0 40.6 33.4 36.6 20.3 62.1
Bad 32.0 41.2 37.2 34.0 43.2 41.3 27.4 36.2 31.3 60.5 79.7 30.9
DK 28.7 25.1 32.8 25.7 27.3 32.3 34.6 23.2 35.3 2.9 6.9
Foreign Investment Promotion Agency
Bad 36.1 31.9 18.0 37.1 29.3 14.6 34.6 35.9 21.3 37.7 27.2 46.1
DK 32.9 39.3 62.2 36.8 40.5 64.5 26.1 35.7 59.4 56.8 72.2 50.7
Good 30.9 28.8 19.8 26.1 30.1 20.9 39.4 28.4 19.3 5.5 0.5 3.3
Privatisation Agency
DK 22.9 22.2 15.8 26.1 20.6 11.3 17.7 25.1 22.2 30.7 11.1 21.3
Good 53.3 59.0 69.1 50.1 59.3 71.8 57.5 56.9 64.4 62.0 88.9 75.9
Bad 23.9 18.9 15.2 23.8 20.1 16.9 24.8 18.0 13.4 7.3 2.8
Employment Bureaux
Good 19.0 17.4 15.1 22.1 14.1 17.1 14.6 22.6 12.3 16.0 10.4 12.2
Bad 63.0 66.9 66.5 59.2 68.2 63.2 67.6 63.7 71.1 81.6 89.6 74.2
DK 18.0 15.7 18.3 18.7 17.6 19.7 17.8 13.7 16.6 2.4 13.5
Source: public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS project by Prism Research
Table XV
To what extent do you use the following in dealing with various state, entity, cantonal, or municipal institutions? (%)
BiH FBiH RS D Brcko

VI '08 IX '08 XI '08 VI '08 IX '08 XI '08 VI '08 IX '08 XI '08 VI '08 IX '08 XI '08
Informal connections and contacts
Very much 23.5 20.2 12.9 23.3 21.4 11.9 23.2 17.9 13.6 31.1 27.9 23.2
Not much 65.7 71.1 78.3 60.7 66.4 76.5 73.5 77.8 81.0 55.0 72.1 76.8
DK 10.9 8.7 8.9 16.0 12.2 11.5 3.2 4.2 5.4 13.9
So-called informal rules
Very much 22.4 18.0 12.7 22.5 16.6 10.2 22.0 19.6 15.9 28.6 25.2 23.2
Not much 66.2 72.6 77.8 61.0 70.3 77.3 74.2 75.8 78.6 57.5 74.8 76.8
DK 11.4 9.4 9.5 16.4 13.0 12.5 3.8 4.6 5.5 13.9
Source: public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS project by Prism Research
Table XVI 27
Annual Report 2008

Can you estimate how much greater your and your family's costs are as a result of direct payments to government
or official institutions in BiH, including organizations, government institutions, formal laws, rules, and their
implementation (%)
Bosniaks Croats Serbs Distrikt Brcko

Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Nov. '08
0 - 5% 8.3 8.6 8.4 11.4 8.5 14.4 12.9 12.5 14.8 36.9 30.2 7.8
5 - 10% 16.5 18.6 18.9 7.4 27.6 12.4 16.6 23.6 13.3 13.4 23.1 26.5
10 - 20% 21.6 22.5 22.2 18.1 14.4 16.5 15.3 13.3 18.5 16.0 19.3 56.6
20 - 30% 16.0 13.7 15.6 16.9 15.8 18.8 13.3 10.2 10.9 1.4 14.3 9.1
30 - 40% 2.2 5.2 6.9 13.0 10.9 14.2 4.7 4.2 5.0 9.9 3.8
40 - 50% 3.3 5.6 5.1 6.7 4.2 4.3 7.5 1.4 6.3 0.6
> 50% 3.4 4.9 4.2 2.8 5.7 0.6 9.7 3.7 5.7 1.3 7.7
10-30 % 37.6 36.2 37.8 35.0 30.1 35.3 28.6 23.5 29.4 17.3 33.7 65.7
DK 28.7 20.9 18.7 23.7 12.9 18.9 20.0 31.1 25.4 20.6 1.6
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
Table XVII
Can you estimate how much greater your total household costs are because of indirect costs associated in dealing
with official institutions (e.g. costs due to time spent on variosu procedures, ineffective implementation of the law,
ineffective institutions)? (%)

0 - 5% 8.2 10.0 15.0 11.2 7.9 16.8 16.9 13.8 18.2 42.1 19.9 31.6
5 - 10% 17.9 24.8 17.4 7.1 23.0 12.1 12.8 21.5 18.7 7.9 30.3 40.8
10 - 20% 16.0 25.9 19.6 16.3 15.9 19.2 12.8 16.6 14.1 16.9 22.9 21.0
20 - 30% 16.8 9.7 19.2 19.6 16.7 20.8 10.7 8.9 8.7 1.1 13.5 6.6
30 - 40% 2.1 1.9 12.6 11.3 12.1 3.5 7.9 4.1
40 - 50% 2.1 1.6 4.6 5.4 4.7 7.9 5.0 1.9 4.5 0.0 2.1
> 50% 3.9 3.5 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.6 6.3 3.1 8.8 1.3 5.6
10-30 % 32.9 35.5 38.8 35.9 32.6 40.1 23.5 25.5 22.8 18.0 36.4 27.6
DK 32.8 22.7 20.8 24.7 17.4 20.5 23.4 30.8 27.0 22.8 1.6
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
Table XVIII
Looking at the performance of government institutions over the past five years, do you think they have become
significantly more efficient, somewhat more efficient, not changed, somewhat less efficient, or significantly less
efficient?

% % % % % % % % % % % %
Significantly more efficient 2.4 0.1 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.6 5.0 1.8 2.2 1.9
Somewhat more efficient 19.2 14.1 18.6 16.5 8.8 14.2 33.3 29.5 37.9 9.0 42.6
Unchanged 36.8 48.2 45.0 64.1 59.0 43.3 50.2 47.9 45.7 52.3 31.3
Somewhat less efficient 17.5 18.4 26.4 9.7 12.0 18.0 6.3 8.5 6.8 30.2 24.1
Significantly less efficient 6.7 5.4 3.2 3.1 2.2 1.5 1.2 0.9 1.5 6.3
DK 17.4 13.9 5.7 6.6 16.9 22.1 7.3 8.2 6.2
TOTAL 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0
28 Table XIX
Annual Report 2008
To what degree to you agree with the following statement: 'I believe that the legal system will support my
property and contractual rights as a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina'?

% % % % % % % % % % % %
Strongly agree 11.6 8.0 13.6 11.7 7.6 7.8 14.4 4.0 10.4 23.2 16.4 60.1
Basically agree 42.7 38.6 44.1 20.2 25.9 24.2 51.6 51.1 46.9 34.9 23.6 37.8
Basically disagree 6.3 15.3 11.0 20.5 13.6 22.1 8.3 9.1 12.7 9.4 20.9
Strongly disagree 17.7 21.0 21.6 33.8 31.0 19.7 14.4 18.8 22.0 16.4 39.1
DK 21.7 17.1 9.6 13.7 21.9 26.2 11.3 17.0 7.9 16.0 2.1
TOTAL 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100.0
THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 29
Annual Report 2008

Table I Table III
Compared to twelve months ago, the economic Exploitation of capacity (%)

situation in BiH now is …? (%)
Above At Below
Better The same Worse Bosnia and Herzegovina
Feb-05 4 31 66 Sep-05 2 42 56
Jun-05 4 39 57 Dec-05 31 39 29
Sep-05 2 42 56 Mar-06 5 51 43
Dec-05 5 51 44 Jun-06 7 57 35
Mar-06 7 41 53 Sep-06 7 47 46
Jun-06 7 39 54 Dec-06 9 42 48
Sep-06 17 38 45 Apr-07 6 49 45
Dec-06 13 40 47 Sep-07 9 53 38
Apr-07 16 51 33 Dec-07 8 42 51
Sep-07 22 34 43 Mar-08 10 43 48
Dec-07 9 29 62 Aug-08 10 43 47
Mar-08 12 35 53 Sep-08 5 56 39
Aug-08 9 35 55 Dec-08 2 53 45
Sep-08 12 35 53 FBiH Sep-05 3 46 51
Dec-08 4 28 68 Dec-05 32 42 25
Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Mar-06 4 50 45
Prism Research
Jun-06 7 59 34
Sep-06 8 49 43
Dec-06 11 42 45
Table II Apr-07 6 51 43
Sep-07 11 54 35
In your opinion, the economic situation in BiH in six Dec-07 8 47 45
months time will be…? (%) Mar-08 12 42 46
Better The same Worse Aug-08 10 46 44
Feb-05 12 46 42 Sep-08 4 61 35
Jun-05 11 52 36 Dec-08 1 53 46
Sep-05 8 48 44 RS Sep-05 - 35 65
Dec-05 10 36 54 Dec-05 29 32 39
Mar-06 15 52 33 Mar-06 7 54 39
Jun-06 13 60 26 Jun-06 13 38 50
Sep-06 16 62 21 Sep-06 - 38 62
Dec-06 19 54 25 Dec-06 - 42 58
Apr-07 21 55 23 Apr-07 6 44 50
Sep-07 21 52 24 Sep-07 29 48 35
Dec-07 18 29 62 Dec-07 6 24 71
Mar-08 17 47 36 Mar-08 3 45 52
Aug-08 15 58 26 Aug-08 10 21 47
Sep-08 11 52 37 Sep-08 9 36 55
Dec-08 3 35 62 Dec-08 0 58 42
Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by
Prism Research
Prism Research
30 Table IV Table V
You expect that your company's financial results in the
Annual Report 2008
With regard to your company’s overall operations, how

would you characterize your financial status compared next six months time will be… (%)
to the same period last year? (%) Better The same Worse Better The same Worse
BiH Apr-07 55 41 4
Better The same Worse
Sep-05 30 52 17 Sep-07 54 38 7
Jun-05 23 43 34
Dec-05 25 45 31 Dec-07 27 47 26
Sep-05 20 49 31
Mar-06 39 42 19 Mar-08 49 32 18
Dec-05 31 39 29
Jun-06 55 30 15 Aug-08 46 46 9
Mar-06 19 43 38
Sep-06 45 39 15 Sep-08 31 47 22
Jun-06 35 34 28
Dec-06 49 36 15 Dec-08 18 36 46
Sep-06 36 38 26
Apr-07 60 34 6 RS
Dec-06 38 36 26
Sep-07 55 36 8 Sep-05 35 43 20
Apr-07 43 36 21
Dec-07 33 39 28 Dec-05 23 52 26
Sep-07 62 24 14
Mar-08 50 36 14 Mar-06 39 46 14
Dec-07 46 34 20
Aug-08 45 46 9 Jun-06 75 13 13
Mar-08 50 32 17
Sep-08 31 48 21 Sep-06 71 19 10
Aug-08 35 41 24
Dec-08 21 36 43 Dec-06 74 16 5
Sep-08 28 46 26
FBiH Apr-07 78 11 11
Dec-08 27 44 29
Sep-05 28 57 16 Sep-07 58 29 10
Prism Research Dec-05 25 42 33 Dec-07 17 12 35
Mar-06 39 40 21 Mar-08 52 45 3
Jun-06 53 32 15 Aug-08 41 48 10
Sep-06 40 44 17 Sep-08 27 55 18
Dec-06 43 40 17 Dec-08 25 33 42
Table VI
How would you compare your company's level of debt to the same period last year?
Higher (%) The same (%) Less (%) N.A. (%)

IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08
BiH 28 23 39 26 23 34 37 46 35 34 46 47 42 35 25 31 25 27 20 24 28 1 11 1 1 10
FBiH 29 24 42 27 25 31 35 42 31 34 43 47 43 38 28 33 24 28 20 26 27 1 12 0 1 9
RS 22 19 29 24 17 41 42 62 48 35 52 48 41 33 17 23 29 24 21 18 25 0 10 6 14
Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research
Table VII
During the past six months, your company has made a...
Bosnia and Herzegovina Profit Loss
(%) (%)
Sep-05 72 28
Dec-05 65 33
Mar-06 76 24
Jun-06 77 23
Sep-06 79 21
Dec-06 81 19
Apr-07 79 18
Sep-07 79 16
Dec-07 77 20
Mar-08 78 18
Aug-08 72 26
Sep-08 63 26
Dec-08 69 31
Table VIIIa 31
Annual Report 2008

To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH:
Very helpful Generally helpful Neither helpful nor unhelpful

XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08
State 1 1 1 1 3 10 7 7 5 10 7 11 5 22 31 31 27 26 25 29 26
Entity 2 3 2 1 2 2 9 9 11 14 8 12 16 11 21 31 32 25 19 22 26 20
Canton 1 2 1 1 2 10 13 8 9 10 9 22 19 21 30 29 23 28 21 19 13
Municipality 3 3 3 1 3 2 14 22 11 15 14 16 16 20 25 28 33 25 28 20 20 15
Table VIIIb
To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH:
Generally unhelpful Not at all helpful Cannot judge N.A.

XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08IX '08 XII '08
State 28 20 14 24 17 19 22 27 15 22 38 30 28 32 19 29 3 6 5 3 5 3 5 2 15 6 11 13 13 9
Entity 31 15 15 27 17 26 21 26 13 21 34 23 29 24 19 28 4 6 2 0 2 6 3 15 5 9 14 13 10
Canton 23 9 11 22 14 20 22 26 14 22 34 24 28 26 19 25 3 3 3 1 2 5 3 23 14 22 18 21 12
Municipality 20 8 16 15 10 14 23 28 15 22 30 28 29 30 23 24 4 3 3 0 2 3 4 1 15 5 14 15 16 10
Table IX
To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations:
Very Somewhat Little Not at all N.A.

VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08 VIII '8 IX '08 XII '08
Customs procedures 19 21 19 33 46 39 13 17 25 13 12 12 21 6
High taxes 50 39 48 24 33 28 10 17 17 6 6 2 10 5
Unfair competition 48 34 42 29 26 27 9 25 16 4 7 9 10 6
Corruption 46 37 42 16 25 26 9 20 12 4 5 6 26 15
The performance of the courts 47 43 45 21 22 26 11 20 16 7 5 3 14 11
Political instability 36 26 34 32 39 27 10 23 24 8 3 6 14 9
Labour market regulation 14 24 28 27 31 31 27 27 21 14 11 14 18 6
Tax administration 23 20 19 32 34 38 20 29 29 10 9 9 14 6
Procedures for issuing work permits 39 36 38 30 29 29 9 20 20 9 7 8 13 5
Environmental regulations 17 17 17 28 35 36 21 30 23 16 9 12 19 13
Safety regulations and standards 16 11 14 20 28 30 32 36 31 16 13 15 17 11
Lack of qualified staff 19 17 19 24 34 34 20 25 26 16 16 14 21 7
32 Table X
Annual Report 2008
To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations:
Very well Fairly well Fairly poorly Very poorly N.A.

IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 XII '08
Central Bank of BiH 34 45 24 30 34 37 43 39 3 3 7 4 3 0 6 6 24 14 20 20
Indirect Tax Authority 23 28 15 16 54 49 47 50 10 8 23 18 5 5 8 9 8 10 7 9
Entity Tax Administrations 14 20 11 6 49 47 46 48 16 13 25 25 7 7 13 17 14 13 5 5
The Judicial System 5 7 4 3 37 29 18 17 13 22 39 36 34 33 30 35 11 9 9 10
European Integration Directorate 3 5 7 7 33 28 22 18 8 9 26 20 8 9 11 10 47 49 34 43
FIPA 2 7 4 3 31 20 29 19 8 11 18 18 18 18 20 19 40 43 29 41
Privatisation Agency 7 8 1 2 29 24 20 14 14 21 28 22 23 22 25 28 28 26 26 34
Banking Agency 10 13 7 5 41 39 28 32 7 7 29 20 6 7 8 7 36 34 28 37
Employment Bureaus 2 11 3 3 43 30 31 36 15 14 34 24 14 20 16 17 26 26 16 20
Foreign-Trade Chamber 2 14 7 4 44 37 28 29 13 13 32 30 10 14 20 18 31 22 13 19
Entity Chambers of Commerce 5 13 9 11 46 35 28 28 17 18 31 27 10 12 20 19 22 22 12 15
Social Funds 2 7 20 2 26 16 9 10 11 7 33 26 8 19 33 37 52 51 23 26
Table XI Table XII
To what extent do you use in your everyday To what extent do you use in your everyday
operationsinformal collections and contacts, e.g. operations ''unwritten rules'', including customs,
family, friends, colleagues...? business practices, codes of behaviour, etc.?
IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08
Very Much 3 9 9 3 8 9 11 Very Much 8 15 14 7 4 8 9
Somewhat 20 18 28 28 26 31 27 Somewhat 21 28 28 38 26 39 37
Little 30 31 29 32 31 32 28 Little 33 28 34 24 29 33 26
Not All 33 36 25 29 22 19 24 Not All 22 20 15 19 21 11 17
No Answer 14 7 9 8 13 8 10 No Answer 16 9 9 12 20 8 12
Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by
Prism Research Prism Research
Table XIII Table XIV
How much does the current institutional framework in How much does the current institutional framework
Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the way in which public in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the way in which
administration is organised and functions, affect your public administration is organised and functions,
business activities in terms of financial costs? affect your business activities in terms time spent
(lengthy and demanding procedures and activities...)
IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 XII '08
Much more than necessary 25 36 42 32 42 39 39 IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX' 08 XII '08
Somewhat more than necessary 28 22 24 24 24 31 24 Much more than necessary 33 38 37 36 42 44 40
About right 7 7 5 14 10 11 10 Somewhat more than necessary 18 17 30 26 21 19 18
Somewhat less than necessary 7 5 6 7 2 3 2 About right 10 9 6 7 9 16 11
Significantly less than Somewhat less than necessary 6 4 4 6 5 3
necessary 7 9 4 6 3 4 7 Significantly less than necessary 5 6 4 5 4 4 7
No answer 26 22 19 17 18 12 18 No answer 28 26 19 20 3 12 21
Table XV Table XVI 33
Annual Report 2008

Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how
much higher your total costs are because of direct much higher your total costs are because of indirect
cash payments made to government payments caused by government
III '08 IX '08 XII '08 III '08 IX '08 XII '08
III '08 BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS
0-5 % 12 9 17 13 13 14 14 17 13 0-5 % 19 19 21 10 13 15 18 13
5-10 % 20 22 17 29 35 9 20 21 17 5-10 % 22 23 21 27 27 23 25 21 29
10-20 % 25 27 21 22 20 32 28 26 29 10-20 % 17 14 24 26 33 5 21 24 13
20-30 % 8 5 14 13 14 5 13 14 8 20-30 % 7 8 3 9 7 18 10 10 13
30-40 % 4 4 3 5 4 3 4 4 4 30-40 % 2 3 0 4 4 5 3 4 0
40-50 % 4 5 0 1 5 0 0 0 40-50 % 1 1 0 7 4 18 3 3 4
50-60 % 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 50-60 % 6 5 7 1 1 2 3 0
> 60 % 1 1 0 1 1 5 7 0 > 60 % 3 4 0 3 1 9 7 6 8
n.a. 23 23 24 13 9 27 13 7 25 n.a. 23 23 24 13 10 23 14 13 21
Table XVII
How has the performance of the government institutions important for your business changed over the past five years?
State level Entity level State level Entity level State level Entity level
BIH III '08 III '08 IX '08 IX '08 XII '08 XII '08
Significantly deteriorated 14 7 12 9 12 8
Moderately deteriorated 18 21 14 13 21 18
The same 37 34 42 43 37 36
Moderately improved 13 22 21 25 21 30
Significantly improved 6 3 1 1 1
Don't know 13 13 10 9 10 8
101 100
FBiH
The same 36 35 42 44 35 31
Significantly improved 7 3
Don't know 11 12 12 10 6 6
100 100
RS
The same 38 31 41 36 33 42
Significantly improved 3 3 5 5 4
Don't know 17 14 5 5 21 13
Table XVIII
To what extent do you agree with the statement, "I am convinced the legal system will support my ownership and
and contractual rights in business disputes"?
BIH FBIH RS
III '08 IX '08 XII '08 III '08 IX '08 XII '08 III '08 IX '08 XII '08
Strongly disagree 21 25 16 26 34 18
Basically disagree 14 17 16 14 7 27
Neither agree nor disagree 40 37 43 40 31 27
Basically agree 17 15 16 14 17 18
Strongly agree 7 6 7 5 7 9
NA 2 1 3
101 100 99 99 99 99
34 INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE
Annual Report 2008
The Social Stability Index
Table Ia
Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension
and all other sources of income (in %)
FBiH RS Brcko District

June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
No income 1.0 0.8 4.3
< 100 KM 3.5 1.0 2.4 7.6 5.6 4.5 17.1 7.9 9.2
101 - 200 1.1 2.2 1.3 5.6 6.7 3.1 6.9 13.6 5.3
201 - 300 16.7 15.4 10.1 12.6 15.4 16.0 25.4 38.4 27.8
301 - 400 14.7 15.8 14.4 9.8 17.7 14.4 8.6 19.0 24.2
401 - 500 12.1 11.7 12.2 11.4 13.2 11.4 9.0 3.8 14.1
501 - 600 7.8 9.5 10.8 8.8 6.7 10.1 2.9 4.0 5.9
601 - 700 6.0 6.7 8.3 8.1 4.6 7.4 7.3 4.1
701 - 800 5.0 5.5 5.9 4.3 2.3 4.4 2.2 1.0
801 - 900 4.6 5.9 5.7 2.5 2.7 2.2
901 - 1000 1.4 3.3 3.3 2.4 1.6 2.0 0.5
1001 - 1100 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.6 0.4
1101 - 1200 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
1201 - 1300 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3
1301 - 1400
1401 - 1500
1501 - 1600
1601 - 1700 0.3
1701 - 1800
1801-1900
1901 - 2000
> 2000 KM/DM
NA 25.8 20.4 23.7 24.6 22.1 24.0 20.8 4.4 12.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research
Table Ib 35
Annual Report 2008


June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
No income 1.0 0.8 4.3
< 100 KM 3.5 1.0 2.4 7.6 5.6 4.5 17.1 7.9 9.2
101 - 200 1.1 2.2 1.3 5.6 6.7 3.1 6.9 13.6 5.3
201 - 300 16.7 15.4 10.1 12.6 15.4 16.0 25.4 38.4 27.8
301 - 400 14.7 15.8 14.4 9.8 17.7 14.4 8.6 19.0 24.2
401 - 500 12.1 11.7 12.2 11.4 13.2 11.4 9.0 3.8 14.1
SUBTOTAL to 500 48.2 47.1 40.3 47.0 59.4 49.5 66.9 86.9 80.6
1501 - 1600 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1601 - 1700 0.3
1701 - 1800 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1801-1900 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1901 - 2000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
More than 2000 KM/DM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
SUBTOTAL >1500 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Table II
Monthly household income, including all wages and

income of all household members, child allowance,
pension and all other sources of income (in %)
June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.

No income 1.0
less than 100 KM 5.4 3.0 3.4
101 - 200 3.0 4.2 2.1
201 - 300 15.3 15.9 12.8
301 - 400 12.6 16.6 14.6
401 - 500 11.7 12.2 11.9
SUBTOTAL to 500 48.1 52.9 44.9
Table II
Income in KM Bosniak Majority areas Croat Majority areas Serb Majority areas
Quarter June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
No income 0.7 2.1 0.8
< 100 3.9 1.3 2.6 2.1 0.1 1.5 7.6 5.6 4.5
101 - 200 1.3 2.0 1.2 0.7 2.8 1.6 5.6 6.7 3.1
201 - 300 19.0 17.2 11.4 8.6 8.8 5.0 12.6 15.4 16.0
301 - 400 17.3 18.8 16.1 5.8 5.1 7.6 9.8 17.7 14.4
401 - 500 14.0 12.2 13.8 5.2 10.1 5.8 11.4 13.2 11.4
Subtotal to 500 55.5 52.3 45.1 22.4 29.1 21.6 47.0 59.4 49.5
Quarter June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
No income 2.0 1.0 0.9
< 100 1.4 2.0 4.3 1.8 2.6 9.0 5.2 4.6
101 - 200 0.6 2.0 6.2 1.8 1.9 2.5 11.1 11.8 3.8
201 - 300 21.3 15.4 29.8 22.5 11.4 15.4 27.3 25.9 21.6
301 - 400 24.5 24.5 17.5 27.2 10.8 9.4 8.7 16.8 25.9
401 - 500 9.0 10.6 20.0 10.3 14.4 15.7 4.6 9.5 10.9
Subtotal to 500 56.9 56.5 77.8 63.5 39.3 45.6 60.7 70.1 66.8
Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research
36 Table III
Annual Report 2008
BiH
Income in KM Urban Rural Male Female 18-35 36-50 51+
Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
No income 0.1 1.7 1.6 0.4 0.1 2.4
< 100 1.5 2.0 4.2 4.4 1.9 2.8 4.0 3.9 1.1 3.3 2.0 2.9 5.4 3.8
101 - 200 3.0 1.3 5.2 2.7 4.2 1.9 4.3 2.3 1.4 0.9 3.4 0.5 7.4 4.4
201 - 300 10.9 9.0 19.6 15.7 16.5 11.5 15.2 14.1 5.8 2.5 7.6 9.9 30.2 25.5
301 - 400 14.7 13.0 18.0 15.9 16.1 15.5 17.1 13.9 9.8 10.3 17.6 13.9 22.6 19.6
401 - 500 12.0 12.2 12.3 11.7 11.5 12.6 12.8 11.3 13.5 12.4 14.8 14.2 9.4 9.9
SUBTOTAL TO 500 42.1 37.5 60.9 50.3 51.9 44.3 53.8 45.4 31.7 29.5 45.4 41.3 77.3 63.1
Table IV
Over past year, household economic status has (in %)?

BiH FBiH RS Brcko Distrikt Bosniak Croat Serb
maj. areas maj. areas maj. areas
Survey Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08.
TOTAL BETTER 15.51 10.76 14.61 10.24 17.52 9.39 2.58 43.77 8.7 16.3 9.4
STAY THE SAME 57.10 53.78 56.75 51.95 59.69 58.24 18.48 28.00 49.7 60.8 58.2
TOTAL WORSE 27.05 34.46 28.46 36.73 22.17 31.63 78.94 25.41 40.5 22.0 31.6
DK/NA 0.35 0.99 0.18 1.09 0.61 0.74 2.82 1.1 0.9 0.7
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table V
Expect the economic situation over the next year to...(in %)
Bosniak Majority areas Croat Majority areas Serb Majority areas

Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
Deteriorate significantly 10.0 0.1 1.5 5.2 2.8 3.7
Deteriorate somewhat 32.8 39.6 13.0 14.9 19.4 23.7
Stay the same 41.4 38.9 69.6 53.2 43.7 48.8
Improve somewhat 7.5 4.0 9.7 22.0 25.4 19.1
Improve significantly 0.5 13.3 1.2 1.3
DK/NA 7.9 4.1 6.3 3.4 7.6 4.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
TOTAL DETERIORATE 42.8 39.7 14.5 20.1 22.1 27.3
Stay the same 41.4 38.9 69.6 53.2 43.9 48.8
TOTAL IMPROVE 7.9 17.2 9.7 23.2 26.6 19.1
DK/NA 7.9 4.1 6.3 3.4 7.5 4.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VI
Expect further privatization to affect their household's economic status….
FBiH RS Brcko Distrikt Bosniak Croat Serb

majority areas majority areas majority areas
Quarter Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
TOTAL NEGATIVE 59.3 66.4 58.0 53.5 32.0 33.6 59.0 68.8 60.4 56.9 58.0 53.5
TOTAL POSITIVE 13.6 10.1 13.7 11.3 13.6 40.1 11.2 7.9 22.3 18.9 13.7 11.3
DK/NA 27.1 23.5 28.3 35.2 54.4 26.3 29.8 23.3 17.3 24.3 28.3 35.2
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
Table VII 37
Annual Report 2008

What change do you expect in your household income, if any, over the next 6 months (%)?
FBiH RS BMA CMA SMA 18-35 36-50 51+

Quarter Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
TOTAL FALL 13.42 14.22 13.32 8.89 13.0 13.6 15.0 16.6 13.3 8.9 12.6 13.4 11.9 9.0 14.5 12.3
TOTAL RISE 21.05 18.36 26.50 25.64 16.8 14.6 35.9 33.3 26.5 25.6 27.5 24.1 24.2 18.6 17.4 19.4
NO CHANGE 58.74 62.78 54.99 60.55 62.8 67.7 44.6 43.4 55.0 60.6 53.1 57.2 57.9 68.2 62.8 64.1
DK/NA 6.80 4.64 5.19 4.91 7.5 4.1 4.5 6.8 5.2 4.9 6.7 5.3 6.0 4.2 5.3 4.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VIII
Will prices rise or fall over next six months (%)

Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
TOTAL FALL 3.93 2.40 6.24 7.40 4.02 2.46 13.44 8.88 38.53 4.18 38.41 35.56
TOTAL RISE 87.05 76.32 74.28 78.08 80.62 89.28 71.59 74.92 53.42 59.62 10.76 0.43
No change 5.13 15.01 13.70 9.31 11.97 5.30 10.56 11.67 8.05 33.33 46.01 61.96
DK/NA 3.89 6.27 5.78 5.22 3.39 2.96 4.41 4.53 2.87 4.83 2.05
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 IX
Expect to be able to save over coming year (%)
FBiH RS Brcko District 18-35 36-50 51+

Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
Yes 7.13 6.33 9.70 7.50 2.05 0.43 12.98 7.16 8.35 7.76 3.12 5.3
No 84.95 88.19 85.43 89.10 94.69 99.57 78.56 87.35 83.95 87.77 92.64 91.1
DK/NA 7.92 5.47 4.88 3.40 3.26 8.46 5.49 7.70 4.47 4.24 3.6
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0
Table X
Think they might lose their job during next three months (%)
FBiH RS Brcko District 18-35 36-50 51+

Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
14.97 15.41 8.98 22.28 11.39 13.34 22.62 10.20 14.46 14.65 12.63
38 Table XI
Annual Report 2008
Would support public protests, strikes, and demonstrations regarding (%)
FBiH RS Brcko District Urban Rural 18-35 36-50 51+

Survey June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08.Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08.
Job loss 59.8 53.5 61.3 48.0 45.6 35.1 24.5 33.4 33.7 56.5 55.1 49.7 52.9 46.0 50.9 60.4 54.7 37.1
Inability to find a job 58.2 50.9 58.2 46.8 44.8 35.3 24.5 33.4 31.6 54.4 52.9 48.4 51.9 44.5 48.8 59.1 51.2 36.1
Entity government policy 53.5 45.0 51.6 44.3 40.2 32.5 24.5 27.6 2.9 50.9 45.7 42.9 48.0 40.4 43.0 51.4 45.3 32.7
Low salaries/pensions 59.2 51.9 60.8 50.3 45.4 37.7 24.5 45.2 38.8 57.7 54.5 50.9 52.9 45.2 51.6 58.4 53.3 42.6
Discrimination/to protect
ethnic and civil rights 56.9 50.8 56.4 50.5 47.3 39.0 24.5 30.6 5.5 54.8 53.7 47.1 52.8 45.4 49.3 56.1 53.0 37.3
Behaviour of the international
community 51.1 43.2 49.8 48.0 43.8 39.9 24.5 25.2 4.2 49.8 46.0 43.3 49.0 40.8 46.0 50.4 49.6 35.7
Return of property 59.6 50.3 54.6 49.6 46.9 41.9 24.5 28.3 33.1 56.0 52.2 46.4 54.1 45.7 51.2 55.8 50.9 41.1
Table XII
Would leave BiH if they could (%)
BiH FBiH RS 18-35 36-50 51+

Sept 08. 41.58 48.31 31.52 64.45 45.61 17.41
Nov 08. 40.36 40.08 41.56 63.29 39.38 17.57
Source: Entity Statistical Offices
Table XIII
Trends for average salaries and the Consumer Price Index for the RS and the FBiH (December 07. - November 08.)
RS
Month 12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/08 09/08 10/08 11/08 Change 10/08 - 12/07
Average salary 628.00 584.00 724.00 731.00 751.00 758.00 768.00 765.00 762.00 783.00 783.00 790.00 124.68
Consumer price index100.80 101.50 100.30 100.90 99.30 100.80 100.90 100.00 100.20 100.00 100.70 99.40 104,2*
FBiH
Month 12/07 01/08 02/08 03/08 04/08 05/08 06/08 07/08 08/07 09/08 10/08 11/08 Change 10/08 - 12/07
Average salary 696.74 709.84 713.20 723.66 735.11 751.82 740.60 763.51 759.11 773.44 780.51 - 112.02
Consumer price index - 101.26 100.42 100.91 99.74 100.91 100.95 100.11 99.60 100.14 100.76 99.37 104,71*
Table XIV Table XV 39
Annual Report 2008

Consumer price index (CPI) itemized (November 2008) Average household spending by item (as % of total)
RS FBiH
FBiH RS
XI 2008/ XI 2008/ XI 2008/ XI 2008 /
Quarter Mar. 08.June 08.Sept 08. Nov 08. Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
X 2008 XI 2007 X 2008 XI 2007
Total 99.40 105.10 99.37 105.95 FOOD 32.9 28.2 32.9 40.2 30.5 30.6 29.1 36.7
Food and non-alcoholic beverages 99.80 107.30 99.63 109.38 CLOTHING/SHOES 5.5 5.3 6.7 5.5 5.7 6.0 7.7 6.8
Alcohol and tobacco 100.00 101.70 100.09 101.40 TOBACCO 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.0 5.3 5.8 5.7 3.8
Clothes and shoes 100.00 98.10 99.64 96.47 HYGIENE 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.0 6.1 7.0 6.5 6.4
Accommodation, water
FUEL AND CAR
and other utilities 100.30 107.70 101.69 112.14
Furniture, furnishings, and MAINTENANCE 6.1 5.8 5.3 5.5 6.1 6.8 6.1 6.2
regular maintainance 100.10 102.80 100.24 103.33 PUBLIC
Healthcare 100.10 100.80 100.07 99.45 TRANSPORT 2.3 2.3 2.9 1.4 1.5 2.6 2.2 1.6
Transport 94.70 104.30 94.34 101.72 CHILDCARE 1.1 1.6 1.5 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.1
Communications 102.80 106.60 99.97 104.80 REPAYMENTS 4.4 5.0 4.9 5.9 4.2 3.8 4.4 3.7
Recreation and culture 100.00 104.90 99.95 106.47
HOUSE REPAIRS 3.4 5.8 3.2 1.9 2.1 3.4 3.2 2.4
Education 100.00 101.10 100.60 97.96
Restaurants and hotels 100.20 105.60 101.04 107.75 MEDICAL
Other goods and services 100.00 103.60 100.02 104.38 EXPENSES 7.0 6.7 5.9 5.0 8.4 7.3 6.5 4.9
Entity Statistics Offices RECREATION 3.9 4.3 3.5 2.4 3.0 4.3 3.5 2.8
EDUCATION
(CHILDREN) 4.0 4.4 5.4 3.0 4.3 2.9 4.7 3.4
ELECTRICITY 8.8 8.5 7.3 6.3 12.4 9.5 9.5 7.8
WATER 3.3 3.8 3.1 2.0 2.6 2.7 3.0 1.5
TELEPHONE 4.9 5.8 4.9 4.3 6.6 5.8 6.0 4.7
GAS 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 93.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.3
Table XVI
Households with durable consumer goods (in %)

FBiH RS
June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. June 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
Telephones 81.55 78.09 83.22 72.22 72.44 71.41
Mobile phones 66.80 68.10 74.27 67.40 68.53 65.23
Dial up internet access 18.05 19.58 20.78 13.16 12.11 14.22
Car 51.59 48.33 53.08 51.52 51.47 54.59
Source: ALDI, BiH and entity consolidated budgets, Eurostat, IMF
Table XVII
Self-description of household economic status(%)
BiH FBiH RS Brcko District Urban Rural BosniakMA Croat MA Serb MA

Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08. Nov 08.
Barely surviving 9.5 8.1 7.7 5.1 11.7 11.5 13.7 25.7 5.9 9.7 5.1 5.1 11.5
Well below average 14.0 11.4 12.0 9.2 15.4 14.3 44.4 17.3 10.9 11.8 9.4 8.6 14.3
Below average 19.7 24.3 17.5 24.4 23.1 24.1 19.7 24.4 23.3 25.0 26.3 17.0 24.1
TOTAL below average 43.2 43.8 37.2 38.7 50.2 49.9 77.8 67.4 40.0 46.6 40.7 30.7 49.9
40 SOCIAL INCLUSION
Annual Report 2008
Table I
Assessment of current economic situation in BiH (%)

Total bad 84,9 77,6 68,0 35,0 72,1 62,3
Total good 1,6 0,2 7,0 16,6 2,6 0,6
NA/DK 1,2 0,9 1,2 1,6 2,0 1,6
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Minority population in BMA Minority population in CMA Minority population in SMA
Total bad 89,1 71,6 50,8 47,3 73,8 55,4
Total good 2,4 2,0 11,2 1,8 3,1
NA/DK 6,1 0,8 0,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table Ia
Assessment of economic situation in BiH by minority situation on each of the ethnic majority areas (%)

Jun. 08. Sep 08. Nov 08. Jun. 08. Sep 08. Nov 08. Jun. 08. Sep 08. Nov 08.
Total bad 71.8 72.0 71.6 49.6 58.7 47.3 73.2 64.0 55.4
Neither good nor bad 21.2 20.3 25.2 33.3 38.8 41.4 24.3 31.7 41.5
Total good 6.4 2.4 17.1 1.5 11.2 2.5 1.8 3.1
NA/DK 0.6 7.7 0.8 1.0 2.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table II
Expect prices over next six months to…. (%)

Fall 6,1 6,0 7,8 13,0 7,5 8,9
Rise 90,0 78,8 87,9 75,4 83,9 74,9
Stay the same 1,8 10,2 3,1 5,9 6,6 11,7
NA/DK 2,1 5,1 1,3 5,7 2,0 4,5
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Fall 3,7 2,0 3,8 22,9 2,5 13,6
Rise 92,5 88,4 87,2 65,5 85,7 75,4
Stay the same 8,9 5,6 8,5 6,3 5,7
NA/DK 3,9 0,8 3,4 3,1 5,5 5,3
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table III 41
Annual Report 2008


Fall 19,8 13,6 16,3 16,6 14,4 8,9
Rise 15,1 14,6 20,1 33,3 20,5 25,6
Stay the same 56,0 67,7 58,9 43,4 58,7 60,6
NA/DK 9,2 4,1 4,7 6,8 6,3 4,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Fall 8,1 11,7 12,8 6,2 5,3 10,0
Rise 5,3 3,8 25,8 37,4 10,5 19,6
Stay the same 72,7 80,0 48,3 55,2 83,3 61,8
NA/DK 13,9 4,5 13,1 1,2 0,9 8,7
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table IIIa

Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
Total fall 13.0 13.6 15.0 16.6 13.3 8.9
Total increase 16.8 14.6 35.9 33.3 26.5 25.6
No change 62.8 67.7 44.6 43.4 55.0 60.6
NZ/BO 7.5 4.1 4.5 6.8 5.2 4.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IV
Expect to save over next half year (%)

Yes 11,3 4,1 14,0 15,1 12,8 7,5
No 83,8 91,5 79,0 75,1 85,1 89,1
NA/DK 4,8 4,3 7,1 9,9 2,2 3,4
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Yes 1,7 4,2 3,0 8,5 5,3 8,8
No 92,7 92,6 89,4 89,2 92,2 89,2
NA/DK 5,6 3,2 7,6 2,3 2,5 2,0
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
42 Table V
Annual Report 2008
Think political situation in BiH is…. (%)

Deteriorating 79,4 79,7 80,2 52,9 82,4 50,3
Improving 15,1 13,5 11,5 24,7 12,1 34,6
NA/DK 5,5 6,8 8,3 22,4 5,5 15,1
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Deteriorating 90,7 82,1 60,3 47,4 82,5 41,2
Improving 4,7 14,7 19,1 48,2 9,5 51,7
NA/DK 4,6 3,1 20,6 4,4 8,1 7,1
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table Va
Expect political situation to deteriorate (%)

Nov. 79.7 82.1 52.9 47.4 50.3 41.2
Sept. 57.2 60.6 61.5 64.5 42.5 43.2
Jun. 54.4 55.6 57.5 71.5 42.5 39.2
Mar. 78.8 88.3 57.7 65.7 57.3 37.6
Table VI
Pride in ethnic identity (%)

Very proud 86,4 84,7 81,4 80,7 82,0 79,3
Somewhat 10,4 8,6 13,6 10,2 12,7 13,7
Not much 2,1 3,7 2,7 2,3 3,3 2,5
Not at all 0,3 0,9 0,5 1,9
Not important 1,2 1,1 1,3 6,0 2,0 2,2
NA/DK 0,5 0,1 0,3 0,2
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Very proud 82,8 90,9 72,8 87,9 74,1 87,8
Somewhat 8,0 4,9 4,5 3,1 14,6 5,0
Not much 1,0 2,7 6,0 1,0
Not at all 5,0 0,6
Not important 2,0 0,7 13,8 6,0 10,3 6,4
NA/DK 1,3 1,8 2,1 0,9 0,7
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table VII 43
Annual Report 2008

Pride in being a citizen of BiH (%)

Very proud 86,3 80,7 31,6 32,5 16,4 23,7
Somewhat 9,8 11,2 27,5 33,8 21,8 20,1
Not much 2,1 5,4 12,7 13,8 19,0 15,7
Not at all 0,5 0,4 10,7 4,7 21,6 20,8
Not important 1,2 0,8 12,6 14,0 20,3 17,7
DK/Can't decide 0,9 1,5 0,3 1,2
NA/DK 0,2 0,6 3,5 0,9 1,0 0,9
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Very proud 78,4 87,0 49,9 75,4 64,2 72,9
Somewhat 8,0 8,7 9,6 12,5 23,6 9,8
Not much 1,0 2,7 9,5 3,0 1,1
Not at all 4,2 0,6 1,1 0,9 5,3
Not important 2,0 27,7 6,7 10,4 10,2
DK/Can't decide 2,6 0,8 0,5
NA/DK 3,9 0,8 2,3 1,4 0,9 0,7
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Table VIII
Thinks High Representative's powers should be…. (%)

Reduced 13,1 10,9 46,8 28,9 85,1 71,6
Increased 55,8 41,9 22,0 18,9 3,9 2,9
Left as they are 25,0 40,0 22,9 31,9 7,4 19,1
NA/DK 6,2 7,2 8,3 20,2 3,6 6,4
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
Reduced 26,8 12,8 17,3 12,0 27,0 17,6
Increased 35,5 26,9 33,7 30,5 24,2 28,2
Left as they are 24,9 56,4 22,1 54,2 45,4 42,2
NA/DK 12,9 3,9 26,9 3,4 3,5 12,0
Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
44 Table IX
Annual Report 2008
Possession of consumer durables

Telephone 83.3 85.7 75.1 73.4 63.8 71.4
Mobile phone 64.3 74.6 61.2 73.1 64.9 65.2
Car 47.9 49.2 61.4 68.2 48.7 54.6
Telephone 84.5 80.5 76.5 62.5 63.8 51.2
Mobile phone 60.5 47.6 56.3 53.1 64.9 62.2
Car 28.3 31.3 54.3 36.9 48.7 24.5
Table X
Believe that legal system will support them in the pursuit of their contractual and property rights (%)

Strongly agree 13.63 17.27 7.81 19.25 10.42 23.88
Somewhat agree 44.12 16.99 24.21 21.63 46.87 42.32
Somewhat disagree 11.04 23.68 22.11 17.35 12.75 6.27
Strongly disagree 21.61 36.47 19.66 18.47 22.02 15.52
NA/DK 9.60 5.59 26.21 23.30 7.93 12.02
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Table XI
Self-description of household status (%)
Urban Rural
Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Nov 08.
Total below average 44.1 38.0 38.5 40.0 53.1 42.8 46.7 46.6
Source: Opinion polls conducted by Prism Research for the UNDP Early Warning Systems Project
Table XIa
Self-description of household status (%)
Urban Rural
Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Nov 08. Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Nov 08..
Barely surviving 10.4 9.3 9.1 5.9 15.4 10.6 9.7 9.7
Well below average 11.0 9.7 9.0 10.9 16.6 14.4 17.8 11.8
Below average 22.7 18.9 20.4 23.3 21.1 17.8 19.3 25.0
Total Below Average 44.1 38.0 38.5 40.0 53.1 42.8 46.7 46.6
Table XII 45
Annual Report 2008

Would emigrate if they could (%) - Sept 08/Nov 08
BiH FBiH RS 18-35 36-50 51+

Sept 08. 41.58 48.31 31.52 64.45 45.61 17.41
Nov 08. 40.36 40.08 41.56 63.29 39.38 17.57
Table XIII
No income 2.7 0.7 0.5 2.1 4.3 0.8
< 100 1.6 3.9 1.3 2.6 3.9 2.1 0.1 1.5 5.2 7.6 5.6 4.5
101 - 200 8.3 1.3 2.0 1.2 6.0 0.7 2.8 1.6 9.8 5.6 6.7 3.1
201 - 300 9.6 19.0 17.2 11.4 5.6 8.6 8.8 5.0 9.3 12.6 15.4 16.0
301 - 400 9.2 17.3 18.8 16.1 6.0 5.8 5.1 7.6 9.9 9.8 17.7 14.4
401 - 500 9.8 14.0 12.2 13.8 4.0 5.2 10.1 5.8 9.9 11.4 13.2 11.4
Subtotal to 500 41.3 55.5 52.3 45.1 25.9 22.4 29.1 21.6 48.3 47.0 59.4 49.5
No income 3.7 2.0 0.5 1.0 10.1 0.9
< 100 6.9 1.4 2.0 4.3 0.9 1.8 2.6 9.6 9.0 5.2 4.6
101 - 200 17.6 0.6 2.0 6.2 5.0 1.8 1.9 2.5 7.7 11.1 11.8 3.8
201 - 300 6.8 21.3 15.4 29.8 4.2 22.5 11.4 15.4 23.2 27.3 25.9 21.6
301 - 400 9.7 24.5 24.5 17.5 5.6 27.2 10.8 9.4 8.2 8.7 16.8 25.9
401 - 500 11.4 9.0 10.6 20.0 6.0 10.3 14.4 15.7 8.5 4.6 9.5 10.9
Subtotal to 500 56.2 56.9 56.5 77.8 22.1 63.5 39.3 45.6 67.3 60.7 70.1 66.8
46 ETHNIC RELATIONS
Annual Report 2008
The Inter-ethnic Stability Index
Table Ia
Have you or any of your household been the victim fo verbal harassment or physical attack during the past year
solely on the grounds of your ethnicity?
Gender
Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
No - never 88.7 93.6 94.7 96.0 96.5 95.1 96.7 94.5 91.8 94.8 94.5 94.7 94.5 94.1 97.2 95.5
Yes - once 5.8 1.3 1.0 1.8 1.9 1.5 0.8 1.2 4.0 1.5 1.1 1.9 3.1 1.4 0.7 1.1
Yes - more than once 3.1 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.6 2.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.4
Yes - frequently 1.8 1.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.3 0.7 2.6 0.1 1.0
DK/NA 0.6 1.8 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.4 1.2 1.6 0.5 0.2 0.9 1.0 1.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table Ib
solely on the grounds of your ethnicity?
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 51 +
% % % % % % % % % % % %
No - never 92.2 94.7 94.7 94.6 93.7 94.1 96.4 94.6 93.6 94.8 96.6 96.0
Yes - once 4.1 1.3 0.7 1.0 4.1 1.5 0.7 2.0 2.7 1.5 1.1 1.5
Yes - more than once 2.5 0.2 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.3
Yes - frequently 1.0 2.6 0.9 1.8 0.4 2.5 0.7 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.6 0.4
DK/NA 0.2 1.1 2.6 1.1 0.6 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.2 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 Ic 47
Annual Report 2008

solely on the grounds of your ethnicity? (%)
AREA
Bosniak MA Croat MA Serb MA
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.
No - never 93.5 91.9 97.0 92.0 93.2 95.5 96.2 88.8 86.1 86.0 94.0 89.9 95.3 91.2 97.5 97.5 97.5 95.8
Yes - once 1.2 3.2 2.0 1.9 2.8 7.5 3.4 11.3 2.6 5.8 1.4 5.6 1.0 1.8 0.6
Yes - more than once 1.4 3.1 0.4 2.0 2.3 1.2 1.9 6.3 0.8 1.0 2.7 1.4 2.1 0.7 0.6 1.7
Yes - frequently 2.6 0.9 2.0 1.8 3.2 1.5 0.7 0.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.7 2.0
DK/NA 1.3 1.8 1.8 2.0 0.7 1.0 0.3 3.5 1.9 2.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.5
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
Table IIa
To what degree you agree or disagree that prewar residents of your municipality who are not of the majority
ethnicity should return to their homes? (%)
Gender
TOTAL DISAGREE 12.6 10.8 12.6 6.2 11.8 11.0 11.6 9.0 12.5 13.1 12.6 8.8 11.8 8.8 11.5 6.9
TOTAL AGREE 83.4 85.4 83.0 90.5 84.9 85.2 85.0 87.9 85.6 84.7 83.0 88.1 83.0 85.8 85.2 89.8
DK/NA 4.0 3.9 4.4 3.3 3.3 3.8 3.4 3.1 1.9 2.2 4.4 3.2 5.2 5.3 3.2 3.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IIb
ethnicity should return to their homes?
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 51 +
Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
% % % % % % % % % % % %
TOTAL DISAGREE 12.8 11.0 11.0 6.0 12.1 7.8 10.1 7.9 11.6 12.6 14.1 9.6
TOTAL AGREE 83.1 86.0 83.6 90.5 86.1 88.2 85.3 89.6 84.0 83.4 83.9 87.0
DK/NA 4.1 3.0 5.4 3.5 1.8 4.0 4.6 2.4 4.4 4.1 1.9 3.4
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 IIc
ethnicity should return to their homes? (%)
AREA
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
TOTAL DISAGREE 9.5 7.6 5.0 7.6 5.6 2.5 13.5 21.8 29.5 14.2 13.2 8.1 11.7 15.6 15.0 12.7 9.1 7.0
TOTAL AGREE 87.3 91.1 92.7 91.1 92.1 94.7 80.9 77.5 60.8 82.9 79.6 80.5 84.1 82.0 81.1 80.0 87.6 90.8
DK/NA 3.2 1.4 2.3 1.4 2.3 2.8 5.6 0.7 9.7 2.9 7.2 11.4 4.2 2.4 3.8 7.3 3.3 2.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
48 Table IIIa
Annual Report 2008
To which of the following categories does your family/household belong? (%)
Gender
Resident, never moved away66.5 72.0 62.2 59.6 72.0 74.0 67.2 74.3 71.4 72.7 66.6 67.7 67.9 73.5 63.6 68.5
Displaced - lived elsewhere
before the war 15.3 12.5 16.3 15.6 14.0 10.4 10.7 9.3 15.8 11.4 13.1 12.7 13.4 11.3 13.1 11.3
Refugee from another
country 0.8 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.9
Returnee 5.4 7.7 9.8 11.4 6.3 9.8 13.2 10.5 6.5 10.2 11.0 10.3 5.4 7.7 12.5 11.4
Moved here after the war 8.4 5.7 9.6 8.9 4.4 3.3 4.9 2.2 3.5 3.9 6.4 5.9 8.7 4.7 7.4 4.3
DK/NA 3.6 1.0 1.6 3.5 3.1 2.0 3.4 3.1 2.5 1.3 2.1 2.9 4.2 1.8 3.1 3.6
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IIIb
To which of the following categories does your family/household belong?
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 Nov 2008
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Resident, never moved away 63.5 72.8 64.0 67.9 72.7 72.4 62.0 64.3 73.0 73.9 67.7 70.8
Displaced - lived elsewhere
before the war 16.2 9.2 11.5 11.4 15.3 15.0 17.3 12.4 12.5 11.2 12.3 12.3
Refugee from another country 0.4 1.2 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.0
Returnee 4.5 8.7 9.3 10.0 4.8 6.6 12.1 13.7 7.9 10.5 13.9 9.7
Moved here after the war 10.8 6.7 12.0 7.3 5.1 4.9 6.3 5.0 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.8
DK/NA 4.6 1.5 2.7 3.2 1.4 1.1 2.0 3.4 3.6 1.5 2.8 3.3
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 IIIc
To which of the following categories does your family/household belong? (%)
AREA
Resident, never
moved away 75.8 74.6 64.1 62.3 70.3 50.9 78.1 60.6 78.1 36.4 69.9 48.4 69.4 23.0 64.1 41.6 67.5 33.7
Displaced - lived
elsewhere before
the war 6.6 3.8 7.0 4.5 2.0 3.4 6.8 5.8 5.0 10.3 17.5 19.8 13.5 22.4 10.9 21.0 0.5
Refugee from
another country 0.3 2.0 0.6 1.1 1.4 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.4 0.9 0.7
Returnee 9.9 18.5 16.4 28.8 13.7 44.3 14.0 23.4 9.2 49.5 13.2 29.0 4.5 58.9 4.7 43.2 4.8 52.6
Moved here after the war 5.4 1.8 10.3 4.0 7.1 2.8 2.5 5.6 2.9 7.0 2.0 1.0 3.7 2.3 4.7 1.8 3.5 5.7
DK/NA 1.9 1.2 2.1 2.9 3.7 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.0 4.1 3.4 1.2 3.3 2.5 2.4 7.4
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
Table IVa 49
Annual Report 2008

How acceptable do you find it...? (%
Croat M.A. Serb M.A.
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008
to live in the same country as Bosniaks
Entirely acceptable 50.8 49.8 61.2 48.5 34.5 38.1
Basically acceptable 26.1 17.6 20.3 32.7 36.2 37.9
Basically unacceptable 8.3 16.6 11.6 7.7 13.4 11.7
Entirely unacceptable 10.5 13.3 2.9 9.4 12.1 10.8
DK/NA 4.3 2.6 4.0 1.8 3.8 1.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to live in the same country as Bosniaks
Total acceptable 76.9 67.4 81.6 81.1 70.7 76.0
Total unacceptable 18.8 29.9 14.4 17.0 25.5 22.4
DK/NA 4.3 2.6 4.0 1.8 3.8 1.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have Bosniaks as neighbours
DK/NA 4.3 2.6 4.4 3.4 4.1 1.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have Bosniaks as neighbours
DK/NA 4.3 2.6 4.4 3.4 4.1 1.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for Bosniak children to go to the same school as your children
DK/NA 4.5 3.0 4.2 2.6 5.0 1.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for Bosniak children to go to the same school as your children
DK/NA 4.5 3.0 4.2 2.6 5.0 1.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have a Bosniak boss
DK/NA 4.5 3.6 6.2 5.3 5.9 4.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have a Bosniak boss
DK/NA 4.5 3.6 6.2 5.3 5.9 4.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for a family member to marry a Bosniak
DK/NA 6.0 3.6 6.1 6.5 9.7 6.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for a family member to marry a Bosniak
DK/NA 6.0 3.6 6.1 6.5 9.5 6.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
50 Table V
Annual Report 2008
How acceptable do you find it...? (%)
Bosniak MA Serb MA
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
Maj. Maj. Maj. Maj. Maj. Maj.
% % % % % %
to live in the same country as Croats Entirely acceptable 91.5 90.7 90.2 50.5 35.7 37.9
DK/NA 1.0 2.2 3.8 1.1 3.0 1.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to live in the same country as Croats Total acceptable 96.0 96.7 95.3 81.8 71.8 77.6
DK/NA 1.0 2.2 3.8 1.1 3.0 1.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have Croats as neighbours Entirely acceptable 91.9 88.5 89.9 49.0 33.8 37.3
DK/NA 1.0 2.2 3.8 2.2 3.3 1.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have Croats as neighbours Total acceptable 96.2 96.6 95.3 77.6 71.4 76.9
DK/NA 1.0 2.2 3.8 2.2 3.3 1.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for Croat children to go to the same school as your children
DK/NA 1.1 2.2 4.3 2.8 4.6 1.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for Croat children to go to the same school as your children
DK/NA 1.1 2.2 4.3 2.8 4.6 1.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have a Croat boss Entirely acceptable 90.5 84.9 85.9 35.7 30.4 34.3
DK/NA 1.8 2.2 4.9 5.5 5.1 4.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have a Croat boss Total acceptable 95.7 93.2 92.5 62.0 61.3 67.8
DK/NA 1.8 2.2 4.9 5.5 5.1 4.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for a family member to marry a Croat Entirely acceptable 27.1 24.5 24.1 17.8 14.3 16.9
DK/NA 7.0 5.6 8.3 6.5 10.5 5.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for a family member to marry a Croat Total acceptable 35.7 32.4 33.2 38.2 27.7 39.9
DK/NA 7.0 5.6 8.3 6.5 10.3 5.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VI 51
Annual Report 2008

How acceptable do you find it...? (%)
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008
Maj. Maj. Maj. Maj. Maj. Maj.
to live in the same country as Serbs Entirely acceptable 90.9 86.7 87.7 48.1 49.8 57.6
DK/NA 1.0 2.3 4.2 4.0 2.6 3.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to live in the same country as Serbs Total acceptable 95.3 93.7 92.6 74.8 68.7 79.7
DK/NA 1.0 2.3 4.2 4.0 2.6 3.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have Serbs as neighbours Entirely acceptable 91.1 84.4 87.6 46.4 49.6 55.8
DK/NA 1.0 2.3 4.2 4.0 2.6 3.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have Serbs as neighbours Total acceptable 95.2 92.7 92.9 74.6 67.8 78.6
DK/NA 1.0 2.3 4.2 4.0 2.6 3.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for Serb children to go to the same school as your children
DK/NA 1.7 2.3 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for Serb children to go to the same school as your children
DK/NA 1.7 2.3 4.2 4.0 3.0 3.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have a Serb boss Entirely acceptable 88.6 81.9 83.7 39.8 44.6 47.8
DK/NA 2.9 2.3 4.9 4.0 3.0 4.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
to have a Serb boss Total acceptable 93.0 89.7 89.1 63.3 63.9 68.8
DK/NA 2.9 2.3 4.9 4.0 3.0 4.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for a family member to marry a Serb Entirely acceptable 24.8 20.5 20.5 19.0 28.3 18.8
DK/NA 8.3 7.0 9.0 5.5 3.9 5.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
for a family member to marry a Serb Total acceptable 32.6 26.9 29.0 30.3 37.5 24.6
DK/NA 8.3 7.0 9.0 5.5 3.9 5.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: EWS opinion polls conducted by PRISM Research
52 Table VIIa
Annual Report 2008
Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%)
Gender
Yes 36.0 34.6 36.1 31.7 34.8 34.5 29.6 33.6 36.7 38.0 37.1 34.7 34.0 31.2 27.9 31.0
No 57.4 50.5 52.5 60.9 55.4 54.5 60.4 56.4 55.3 47.8 53.5 57.0 57.2 57.6 60.4 59.6
DK/NA 6.6 14.9 11.4 7.4 9.8 11.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 14.3 9.4 8.3 8.8 11.2 11.7 9.5
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
Table VIIb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Yes 48.1 47.4 45.0 49.9 39.2 38.0 30.8 28.6 21.0 21.9 21.2 18.2
No 42.4 37.5 43.1 41.8 52.7 46.8 56.4 60.7 71.4 69.2 70.8 73.6
DK/NA 9.6 15.1 12.0 8.3 8.1 15.2 12.9 10.8 7.6 8.8 7.9 8.2
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
Table VIIc
AREA
Yes 36.7 45.6 39.0 42.9 39.4 39.0 42.8 36.8 30.9 15.9 32.1 45.3 29.0 57.1 26.7 43.3 25.1 28.8
No 52.3 45.6 53.2 48.6 53.9 58.8 42.6 51.9 58.3 65.2 51.8 44.9 56.4 34.8 59.2 38.5 65.1 58.9
DK/NA 11.0 8.8 7.9 8.5 6.8 2.2 14.6 11.3 10.9 18.9 16.1 9.8 14.5 8.1 14.1 18.2 9.8 12.3
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
Table VIIIa
How proud are you of your ethnicity?

Gender
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Very 82.6 78.7 77.3 81.0 85.0 83.8 86.8 83.3 80.9 79.9 82.4 82.2 86.9 83.2 83.1 82.5
Somewhat 12.4 13.3 16.2 11.7 10.9 11.0 8.3 10.0 13.9 13.1 11.4 11.0 9.2 11.0 11.9 10.5
Not very 2.7 3.0 3.8 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6 3.2 3.5 2.4 3.4 3.1 2.0 3.0 2.8 2.8
Not all 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.4 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7
It's not important 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.8 1.0 2.2 1.1 1.6 1.3 2.7 1.8 1.1 1.7 1.7 0.8 3.0
DK 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.6
NA 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.5
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
Table VIIIb 53
Annual Report 2008

How proud are you of your ethnicity? (%)
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Very 83.2 81.6 80.0 80.7 82.4 81.8 84.3 84.9 85.8 81.3 84.5 82.2
Somewhat 13.6 11.1 13.8 13.9 13.3 12.9 13.0 8.2 8.4 12.6 8.8 9.2
Not very 2.4 3.1 4.1 3.2 2.0 1.7 1.7 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.3
Not all 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.4 1.3 1.2 1.6
It's not important 0.7 2.6 1.3 1.3 2.1 3.2 0.8 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.5 2.8
DK 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 1.1
NA 0.0 1.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.8
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
Table VIIIc
How proud are you of your ethnicity? (%)

AREA
Very 91.1 74.5 87.4 84.7 84.7 90.9 77.3 85.1 78.3 72.9 80.7 87.9 71.3 71.4 78.4 82.7 79.3 87.8
Somewhat 4.8 10.7 8.6 8.6 8.6 4.9 13.3 8.9 11.9 11.1 10.2 3.1 20.5 16.2 15.5 9.3 13.7 5.0
Not very 0.7 2.1 2.8 0.9 3.7 2.7 4.5 2.8 6.4 2.0 2.3 1.0 4.5 1.1 2.5 1.8 2.5
Not all 0.4 4.7 0.1 0.9 0.3 1.1 2.2 1.0 0.5 1.1 2.4 0.7 0.9 1.9
It's not important 2.0 7.4 0.9 4.9 1.1 0.7 3.6 1.1 1.5 7.6 6.0 6.0 2.0 4.4 1.5 5.4 2.2 6.4
DK 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.2
NA 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 6.3 0.3 2.1 0.6 3.5 0.7 0.2 0.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IXa
How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%)
GENDER
Very 52.9 51.5 46.3 51.5 50.6 53.1 55.5 54.4 49.4 51.3 49.7 52.6 53.6 53.4 53.4 53.8
Somewhat 16.0 14.8 21.2 14.5 17.1 14.3 21.6 19.2 17.5 13.4 21.4 16.9 15.9 15.5 21.5 17.5
Not very 11.2 12.1 13.8 12.4 9.4 11.1 9.6 8.7 8.9 12.3 11.9 10.1 11.4 10.8 10.9 10.5
Not all 9.2 10.2 9.1 11.5 11.0 6.7 5.6 6.8 13.2 9.3 7.6 9.1 7.3 7.2 6.7 8.5
It's not important 9.9 9.5 7.9 8.4 10.6 13.7 4.9 9.3 10.0 12.2 7.5 9.4 10.5 11.7 5.0 8.4
DK 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.6 0.3 0.7 1.1 0.2
NA 0.9 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.7 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.9 0.7 1.4 1.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
54 Table IXb
Annual Report 2008
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Very 54.1 52.9 50.8 51.5 50.4 51.5 46.3 56.6 50.1 51.8 55.2 52.6
Somewhat 18.9 14.7 26.7 20.5 17.5 11.6 20.7 14.1 14.1 15.7 16.8 16.0
Not very 6.8 11.2 10.3 12.2 9.6 11.6 12.6 8.9 13.7 12.1 11.8 9.3
Not all 8.6 6.9 6.8 6.7 11.5 9.4 10.0 11.3 10.9 8.8 5.9 9.2
It's not important 10.8 12.8 3.9 7.9 9.6 15.4 8.9 8.5 10.3 9.7 7.0 10.3
DK 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.2 1.2
NA 0.7 1.3 1.0 0.4 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 2.0 1.6
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
Table IXc
AREA
Very 89.8 78.0 81.1 76.7 80.7 87.0 35.6 69.2 36.1 60.2 32.5 75.4 12.7 54.3 21.0 60.8 23.7 72.9
Somewhat 4.0 10.0 12.4 9.6 11.2 8.7 21.1 7.6 29.1 16.3 33.8 12.5 25.1 16.3 30.2 15.1 20.1 9.8
Not very 1.5 2.1 4.1 6.9 5.4 2.7 15.8 9.3 16.3 3.1 13.8 3.0 22.3 3.2 18.7 10.8 15.7 1.1
Not all 1.7 4.1 0.7 1.9 0.4 12.9 9.2 6.2 6.5 4.7 1.1 14.4 8.4 15.0 20.8 5.3
It's not important 2.1 3.4 0.9 4.9 0.8 11.6 3.2 8.8 7.6 14.0 6.7 23.9 13.3 11.6 10.9 17.7 10.2
DK 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.2
NA 0.7 2.4 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.8 1.0 2.1 6.3 0.9 1.4 1.1 3.5 2.3 2.5 0.9 0.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table Xa
If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%)
TIP Gender
Yes 26.2 14.0 19.9 21.9 33.3 16.8 17.3 23.8 32.3 16.2 20.9 23.9 28.3 15.0 16.1 22.1
No 62.1 71.7 63.9 67.4 56.7 71.3 71.5 63.6 60.4 73.9 67.5 66.5 57.7 69.2 68.9 64.1
DK/NA 11.6 14.3 16.2 10.6 10.0 11.8 11.2 12.6 7.2 9.9 11.6 9.6 14.0 15.8 15.0 13.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table Xb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Yes 32.6 11.4 19.0 22.3 26.9 21.0 14.7 24.8 30.5 16.6 19.9 22.5
No 56.7 77.6 66.7 62.2 62.6 65.5 72.6 66.1 58.6 70.3 67.2 67.8
DK/NA 10.7 11.0 14.2 15.5 10.5 13.5 12.7 9.1 10.9 13.1 12.8 9.8
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
Table Xc 55
Annual Report 2008

AREA
Yes 16.2 20.8 26.0 17.5 29.5 13.9 12.4 26.4 15.5 19.6 18.6 27.2 15.4 18.4 11.5 13.5 17.8 27.0
No 65.1 53.3 56.6 70.7 60.9 78.4 75.2 61.3 74.5 71.1 57.0 67.7 78.1 55.6 78.0 75.4 70.9 64.7
DK/NA 18.7 25.8 17.4 11.8 9.5 7.7 12.4 12.3 10.0 9.3 24.5 5.2 6.5 26.0 10.5 11.1 11.3 8.3
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
Table XIa
Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%)
Gender
Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights
48.5 54.8 53.7 47.1 52.9 52.8 45.4 49.3 55.3 56.7 52.2 49.5 46.9 50.7 45.9 47.3
44.8 39.0 37.8 41.8 43.5 41.6 48.0 45.7 40.7 36.3 40.9 43.9 47.4 44.5 46.2 44.2
6.7 6.2 8.5 11.1 3.5 5.6 6.7 5.0 4.0 7.0 6.9 6.6 5.7 4.8 7.9 8.5
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
Table XIb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
53.2 57.9 51.1 56.1 57.2 62.9 57.1 53.0 44.7 45.0 42.5 37.3
40.9 35.5 39.3 36.6 39.6 31.2 38.1 39.0 50.2 50.2 50.8 55.2
Total 5.9 6.6 9.6 7.3 3.2 5.9 4.8 8.0 5.2 4.9 6.7 7.5
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 XIc
AREA
Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min.
61.3 53.2 49.8 39.1 56.2 54.3 41.2 35.5 54.3 48.9 57.3 40.4 50.5 41.8 47.3 46.5 39.0 33.1
31.5 38.9 42.0 48.6 34.0 41.3 50.8 61.6 35.7 34.5 34.9 57.6 45.5 53.5 46.5 49.0 55.6 63.0
7.1 7.9 8.1 12.3 9.8 4.5 8.0 2.9 10.0 16.6 7.9 2.1 4.0 4.7 6.2 4.4 5.3 3.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
56 Table XIIa
Annual Report 2008
How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%)
Gender
None 9.0 11.2 11.4 11.2 11.6 14.7 18.4 15.9 10.3 14.2 14.2 14.7 10.7 12.2 16.5 13.1
Little 19.3 20.3 17.8 19.6 21.5 24.3 24.5 20.8 18.9 22.4 23.9 21.4 22.1 22.8 19.4 19.2
A certain amount 37.7 30.0 30.5 32.9 33.5 30.5 28.3 27.3 34.5 29.3 26.0 28.9 36.1 31.2 32.3 30.5
A lot 27.2 26.2 32.9 31.1 25.6 20.0 23.1 28.1 31.2 26.4 30.9 29.5 21.6 19.0 23.8 29.3
DK/NA 6.8 12.3 7.3 5.2 7.8 10.6 5.8 7.8 5.1 7.7 5.0 5.5 9.6 14.8 7.9 7.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total LITTLE 28.3 31.5 29.3 30.7 33.1 39.0 42.8 36.7 29.2 36.6 38.1 36.2 32.7 35.0 36.0 32.3
Total MUCH 64.9 56.2 63.4 64.0 59.1 50.5 51.4 55.5 65.6 55.7 56.9 58.4 57.7 50.2 56.1 59.8
DK/NA 6.8 12.3 7.3 5.2 7.8 10.6 5.8 7.8 5.1 7.7 5.0 5.5 9.6 14.8 7.9 7.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table XIIb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
None 10.4 14.2 13.4 11.2 9.1 10.2 14.4 13.1 11.6 13.6 17.8 17.2
Little 18.4 23.1 17.4 18.8 19.7 23.1 23.0 17.9 23.1 21.7 24.9 23.4
A certain amount 36.3 29.9 35.2 31.2 41.5 27.7 27.7 30.5 30.0 32.1 24.4 27.6
A lot 26.7 22.7 29.7 29.4 23.1 28.7 29.2 35.1 28.2 19.7 24.0 25.4
DK/NA 8.2 10.1 4.3 9.4 6.7 10.3 5.7 3.3 7.2 12.8 9.0 6.3
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 LITTLE 28.8 37.3 30.8 30.0 28.7 33.3 37.5 31.0 34.7 35.3 42.7 40.6
Total MUCH 63.0 52.6 64.9 60.6 64.6 56.4 56.8 65.6 58.1 51.9 48.3 53.1
DK/NA 8.2 10.1 4.3 9.4 6.7 10.3 5.7 3.3 7.2 12.8 9.0 6.3
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 XIIc
AREA
None 4.7 6.8 7.3 4.9 2.1 7.4 20.7 6.1 9.2 6.6 6.2 5.7 19.2 11.8 24.5 19.2 28.0 10.4
Little 17.6 10.6 12.6 10.4 18.1 13.2 29.8 28.3 29.8 11.7 16.1 14.0 25.3 35.1 29.7 31.3 22.7 25.8
A certain amount 28.7 15.1 31.5 29.1 31.6 18.7 35.1 24.6 36.2 39.2 32.2 33.2 31.0 31.5 24.3 20.4 28.3 27.5
A lot 32.5 45.2 43.0 45.2 45.6 58.8 10.6 38.0 14.7 35.1 25.7 43.7 16.1 12.5 14.8 14.0 13.0 24.1
DK/NA 16.5 22.2 5.6 10.4 2.6 1.9 3.7 3.0 10.0 7.3 19.8 3.4 8.4 9.1 6.6 15.1 8.0 12.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total LITTLE 22.3 17.5 19.9 15.3 20.2 20.5 50.5 34.4 39.0 18.3 22.3 19.7 44.5 46.9 54.2 50.5 50.7 36.2
Total MUCH 61.2 60.4 74.5 74.4 77.2 77.5 45.7 62.6 51.0 74.3 57.9 76.9 47.1 44.1 39.2 34.5 41.3 51.6
DK/NA 16.5 22.2 5.6 10.4 2.6 1.9 3.7 3.0 10.0 7.3 19.8 3.4 8.4 9.1 6.6 15.1 8.0 12.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table XIIIa 57
Annual Report 2008

Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or
disagree with this idea? (%)
Gender
TOTAL DISAGREE 72.5 63.8 63.0 74.9 67.8 62.4 56.9 72.2 73.9 64.3 60.3 72.7 65.8 62.1 59.6 73.9
TOTAL AGREE 19.5 22.4 26.4 16.2 21.2 23.8 28.1 18.0 20.5 24.1 27.2 19.3 20.5 22.4 27.3 15.3
DK/NA 8.0 13.8 10.7 8.9 11.0 13.8 15.0 9.9 5.6 11.7 12.5 8.0 13.7 15.5 13.1 10.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table XIIIb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 51 +
% % % % % % % % % % % %
TOTAL DISAGREE 71.1 59.6 60.0 73.9 73.4 65.3 60.2 74.4 66.1 65.0 59.6 72.0
TOTAL AGREE 20.1 26.7 29.5 14.9 19.5 21.1 25.8 17.4 21.6 21.4 26.2 19.5
DK/NA 8.8 13.7 10.5 11.2 7.1 13.6 14.0 8.3 12.3 13.6 14.2 8.5
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 XIIIc
AREA
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
TOTAL DISAGREE 69.4 83.7 73.4 63.8 86.9 92.7 51.6 75.5 47.2 64.4 41.0 60.4 51.4 65.7 53.1 52.3 65.4 59.8
TOTAL AGREE 15.1 10.9 15.9 14.5 8.0 5.1 32.2 18.4 38.5 28.1 45.7 32.6 31.0 21.4 31.5 30.2 20.5 23.3
DK/NA 15.6 5.4 10.6 21.7 5.1 2.2 16.1 6.1 14.3 7.5 13.3 7.1 17.7 12.9 15.4 17.4 14.1 16.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
58 PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY
Annual Report 2008
The Safety Index of BiH
Table Ia
During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of.... (%)

Burglary at home
Yes 1.3 3.1 2.9 1.5 0.9 1.8 1.9 0.5 1.1 2.8 2.4 1.4 1.0 2.0 2.3 0.5
No 98.6 96.5 96.0 98.3 98.7 96.8 95.4 98.6 98.6 95.5 96.1 98.2 98.7 97.8 95.3 98.7
DK/NA 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.5 1.4 2.7 0.9 0.3 1.8 1.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.8
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Burglary at workplace
Yes 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.3 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
No 98.4 98.6 97.5 99.3 98.4 97.0 96.4 98.2 98.7 96.8 97.1 98.8 98.2 98.5 96.7 98.5
DK/NA 0.9 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.1 2.0 2.4 1.1 0.9 1.9 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.8 2.7 1.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Pickpocketing
Yes 1.7 2.1 4.1 2.2 0.7 1.4 2.2 1.4 0.0 1.9 4.1 2.1 2.2 1.5 2.0 1.4
No 98.2 97.4 94.3 97.5 98.8 97.2 95.4 97.6 99.6 96.4 94.6 97.4 97.5 98.2 95.4 97.8
DK/NA 0.1 0.5 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.4 2.4 1.0 0.3 1.7 1.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.8
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Car theft
Yes 0.2 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.3 1.9 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.2
No 99.0 97.7 98.1 99.5 98.4 97.8 97.0 98.8 98.9 96.4 97.7 99.2 98.4 99.0 97.2 99.0
DK/NA 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.2 1.0 1.4 2.2 1.0 0.7 1.7 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.3 2.4 0.9
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Theft of other valuables
Yes 2.2 3.1 3.6 1.0 2.3 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.7 2.0 2.4 1.3 1.9 1.8 2.4 2.3
No 97.4 96.5 94.8 98.8 97.2 97.6 96.1 96.7 97.1 96.2 96.3 98.1 97.5 97.9 94.9 97.0
DK/NA 0.4 0.5 1.6 0.2 0.5 1.4 2.4 1.0 0.3 1.7 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.3 2.7 0.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Scam/Con
Yes 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1
No 99.7 99.0 97.8 99.5 99.2 98.1 96.7 99.0 99.5 97.7 97.6 99.3 99.3 99.2 96.8 99.1
DK/NA 0.1 0.7 1.7 0.4 0.5 1.3 2.4 1.0 0.3 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 2.7 0.8
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Blackmail
Yes 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.3 0.5 1.9 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3
No 99.7 98.4 97.6 99.4 99.1 97.6 96.7 98.6 99.1 96.5 97.6 99.2 99.6 99.3 96.7 98.6
DK/NA 0.1 0.6 1.6 0.4 0.5 1.3 2.4 1.2 0.4 1.6 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.4 2.7 1.1
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table Ib 59
Annual Report 2008

During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of....
Table I b Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 51 +
Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2007 Jun. 2008Sep 2008 Nov 2008
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Burglary at home
Yes 1.9 2.5 3.2 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.7 0.4 0.4 3.1 1.8 1.7
No 98.0 96.6 93.8 99.4 99.1 98.8 98.2 98.6 98.9 95.4 96.1 97.4
DK/NA 0.1 0.9 3.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.6 2.2 0.8
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
Yes 0.5 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 1.4 0.9 0.1
No 99.0 98.2 95.1 98.3 98.6 98.7 99.6 98.8 97.7 96.6 97.1 98.9
DK/NA 0.5 1.1 3.0 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.1 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.0
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
Pickpocketing
Yes 1.4 1.6 3.5 1.9 1.0 1.8 4.7 1.8 1.0 1.9 1.7 1.6
No 98.5 97.5 93.5 98.0 99.0 98.0 95.1 97.2 98.4 96.6 96.3 97.4
DK/NA 0.2 0.9 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.7 1.5 2.0 1.0
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
Car theft
Yes 0.6 1.9 1.8 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.1
No 98.9 97.3 95.7 99.5 99.3 98.9 99.6 98.8 98.0 97.5 97.9 98.9
DK/NA 0.5 0.9 2.5 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.0
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
Yes 2.3 2.1 3.3 1.6 2.8 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
No 97.2 97.0 93.5 98.3 97.2 98.4 98.8 98.0 97.5 96.4 95.8 96.5
DK/NA 0.5 0.9 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.7 1.6 2.0 1.1
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
Scam/Con
Yes 0.0 0.3 1.6 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.0
No 99.9 98.9 95.3 99.8 99.3 99.7 99.5 98.8 99.0 97.4 97.8 98.9
DK/NA 0.1 0.9 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.7 1.6 2.0 1.1
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
Blackmail
Yes 0.4 0.9 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.8 0.2 0.2
No 99.5 98.2 95.0 99.5 100.0 100.0 99.6 98.8 98.8 96.6 97.8 98.4
DK/NA 0.1 0.9 3.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.7 1.6 2.0 1.4
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
60 Table Ic
Annual Report 2008
During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of.... (%)
AREA
Burglary at home
Yes 3.2 4.3 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.8 7.2 4.1 5.0 1.1 3.5 1.7 1.9 0.5
No 96.2 93.8 94.1 97.1 97.5 97.7 96.9 90.2 92.9 90.0 97.4 95.3 96.9 100.0 98.1 99.3 100.0 99.5
DK/NA 0.7 1.8 3.7 2.9 0.9 1.2 2.6 2.9 4.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Yes 1.0 3.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.8 6.2 2.5 0.5 1.2 3.5 0.7 1.1 1.2 0.3
No 98.3 94.4 95.9 96.2 98.6 100.0 97.2 91.7 94.5 94.5 97.0 95.3 97.0 98.9 98.6 99.3 99.2 100.0
DK/NA 0.7 1.8 3.4 2.9 0.9 1.0 2.1 2.9 4.9 1.8 1.2 2.3 0.2 0.7 0.5
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
Pickpocketing
Yes 2.1 5.0 3.1 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.3 7.4 3.2 3.1 3.6 3.7 0.9 1.3 3.0 1.1 1.0 0.5
No 97.2 93.2 93.5 95.1 97.0 98.5 95.7 90.5 93.7 92.0 94.6 95.1 97.8 98.7 96.8 98.2 99.0 99.5
DK/NA 0.7 1.8 3.4 2.9 0.9 1.0 2.1 3.2 4.9 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Car theft
Yes 1.6 2.5 0.5 0.1 0.9 6.2 1.0 0.5 1.6 3.0 1.1 1.1
No 97.8 95.7 96.6 97.1 99.0 100.0 98.1 91.7 96.1 94.5 97.0 95.8 97.5 100.0 98.7 99.3 99.8 100.0
DK/NA 0.7 1.8 2.9 2.9 0.9 1.0 2.1 2.9 4.9 1.5 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.7 0.2
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Yes 2.7 8.1 2.1 1.2 2.2 8.8 3.5 2.9 4.5 0.9 2.1 2.5 0.9 1.4 0.5
No 96.6 90.7 94.5 97.1 97.8 100.0 96.8 89.1 93.6 95.1 95.3 94.3 97.7 97.9 97.2 98.4 98.6 99.5
DK/NA 0.7 1.2 3.5 2.9 0.9 1.0 2.1 2.9 4.9 1.8 1.2 1.4 0.2 0.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Scam/Con
Yes 0.9 3.1 0.5 0.1 0.7 6.9 1.2 0.5 0.3 4.0 0.9
No 98.2 95.1 96.0 97.1 98.9 96.9 98.7 91.0 95.6 94.6 97.9 93.7 98.6 100.0 98.9 99.3 100.0 100.0
DK/NA 0.9 1.9 3.5 2.9 1.1 3.1 0.6 2.1 3.2 4.9 1.8 2.3 1.4 0.2 0.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Blackmail
Yes 1.8 3.1 0.6 0.1 0.7 6.2 1.0 0.3 5.5 0.4 1.1 0.5
No 97.4 95.1 95.9 97.1 98.6 96.9 98.7 91.7 96.1 95.1 97.9 92.2 98.2 100.0 98.7 99.3 99.5 100.0
DK/NA 0.8 1.8 3.5 2.9 1.4 3.1 0.6 2.1 2.9 4.9 1.8 2.3 1.4 0.2 0.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IIa 61
Annual Report 2008

During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)
Gender
Yes 9.5 4.4 6.6 5.0 4.5 5.5 3.7 4.7 6.7 5.9 6.5 5.5 6.6 4.2 3.5
No 90.1 95.3 90.7 94.0 95.1 93.8 95.2 94.5 92.9 93.8 91.3 93.7 92.9 95.1 95.2 94.8
DK/NA 0.4 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.4 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.3 2.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 1.3 1.0
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IIb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Yes 8.9 4.6 3.5 7.1 5.3 5.3 8.5 3.7 5.6 5.5 4.4 3.4
No 91.1 95.4 94.5 92.5 94.4 94.3 90.6 94.5 93.5 94.0 93.7 95.9
DK/NA 2.0 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.9 1.8 1.0 0.5 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
Table IIc
AREA
Yes 6.60 11.21 5.94 7.79 5.84 2.25 4.08 7.76 3.13 5.32 4.57 2.18 3.86 3.19 4.62 3.28 3.76 1.80
No 93.06 86.32 93.08 92.21 92.53 96.55 94.71 91.55 90.75 93.14 94.33 94.23 95.79 96.81 94.16 96.72 96.24 98.20
DK/NA 0.34 2.48 0.98 1.63 1.20 1.21 0.69 6.12 1.54 1.10 3.59 0.34 1.21
TOTAL 100.00 100.00100.00100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00100.00 100.00
Table IIIa
If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%)
Gender
Not at all satisfied 16.1 84.3 24.5 27.2 19.6 59.6 18.7 26.3 12.7 76.8 33.0 36.1 22.1 58.2 2.6 14.9
Generally dissatisfied 51.6 11.7 46.2 33.1 25.9 34.7 38.9 21.5 47.8 20.6 37.4 6.6 35.8 33.5 53.2 51.6
Generally satisfied 27.3 23.7 22.0 39.1 33.7 40.7 32.4 25.6 43.3 31.4 32.2 19.0
Totally satisfied 4.3 5.6 15.5 15.4 8.6 6.5 6.3 4.0 9.0 10.7 12.0 12.3
DK/NA 0.7 4.0 2.2 5.7 5.0 0.8 2.6 5.1 8.3 2.2
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
62 Table IIIb
Annual Report 2008
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Not at all satisfied 17.9 77.5 6.9 16.6 18.3 64.3 38.8 39.2 16.2 65.2 15.7 38.5
Generally dissatisfied 44.9 22.5 36.9 27.1 39.6 29.2 41.8 28.3 38.5 27.0 49.2 24.2
Generally satisfied 29.7 48.3 37.9 16.9 16.6 27.6 45.3 24.6 24.7
Totally satisfied 7.5 8.0 13.2 23.3 2.8 10.5 12.5
DK/NA 5.2 1.8 6.5 4.9 7.8
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
Table IIIc
AREA
Not at all satisfied 76.5 82.8 21.3 42.7 46.7 86.8 11.4 61.6 100.0 25.9 3.7
Generally dissatisfied 23.5 11.7 55.0 77.1 32.8 66.7 53.3 13.2 23.5 8.9 37.2 22.8 21.8 31.0 33.3 12.3 30.5
Generally satisfied 19.5 22.9 10.3 33.3 39.4 91.1 45.1 54.4 36.1 33.3 70.0 69.5
Totally satisfied 4.1 9.2 25.7 9.2 7.0 33.3 13.9
DK/NA 5.5 5.0 8.5 22.8 16.6
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IVa
In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%)
Gender
Yes 3.0 1.8 0.9 1.1 2.1 2.1 0.7 1.5 3.6 1.1 1.9 1.4 1.9 0.6 0.8
No 96.2 97.6 98.6 96.4 96.9 96.8 98.2 95.0 95.9 97.7 94.2 97.2 96.9 99.0 97.0
DK/NA 0.9 0.6 0.4 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.4 0.5 1.3 3.9 1.4 1.2 0.4 2.1
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table IVb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Yes 3.5 2.1 0.5 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.1 0.7 1.3 2.0 0.9 1.2
No 95.9 97.2 98.0 94.6 97.3 96.9 97.8 96.9 97.3 97.6 99.0 95.8
DK/NA 0.6 0.8 1.4 3.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 2.4 1.4 0.3 0.2 3.0
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
Table IVc 63
Annual Report 2008

AREA
Yes 2.6 6.2 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.5 1.63 9.7 1.1 4.3 2.0 1.4 0.6 1.1
No 96.9 92.0 97.9 99.1 94.2 95.4 96.17 88.9 97.5 99.5 93.1 97.3 97.6 100.0 99.1 98.9 98.0 92.3
DK/NA 0.5 1.9 1.2 4.0 3.1 2.19 1.4 1.4 0.5 2.6 0.7 1.0 0.3 2.0 7.7
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table Va
Over the past six months, have you experienced or witnessed the clear abuse of police powers (e.g. regulating
traffic, civil protests, or during investigation, etc.)? (%)
Gender
Yes 13.7 12.0 13.7 12.8 8.8 10.1 4.1 6.2 12.1 11.9 10.6 10.7 9.8 10.0 6.0 7.4
No 86.1 86.0 82.8 86.1 90.2 88.5 94.5 92.1 87.1 86.4 87.1 88.4 89.7 88.4 91.8 90.6
DK/NA 0.2 1.9 3.4 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.7 0.8 1.7 2.3 0.9 0.5 1.6 2.3 1.9
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table Vb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
Yes 15.0 14.1 12.1 13.0 10.1 13.3 10.0 8.1 7.9 7.4 3.5 5.6
No 84.6 84.2 84.4 85.1 88.7 84.9 88.8 90.3 91.8 91.2 94.8 93.6
DK/NA 0.4 1.7 3.5 1.9 1.3 1.7 1.2 1.6 0.3 1.4 1.7 0.8
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
Table Vc
AREA
Yes 8.4 8.7 10.1 8.9 9.6 6.1 10.0 17.7 3.2 10.1 8.1 2.7 14.8 2.1 8.2 2.9 9.0 2.2
No 90.4 86.3 88.5 87.3 88.4 90.8 86.0 80.5 91.2 86.8 89.8 96.6 83.8 95.3 89.5 96.4 90.3 97.2
DK/NA 1.2 5.0 1.4 3.8 2.0 3.1 4.0 1.7 5.6 3.1 2.1 0.7 1.4 2.5 2.3 0.7 0.7 0.5
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
64 Table VIa
Annual Report 2008
Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%)
Gender
Police
Yes 68.0 52.4 54.7 64.1 62.5 51.3 53.9 61.2 64.5 50.1 53.1 66.2 65.2 53.3 55.4 59.0
No 22.1 25.3 28.0 23.1 24.3 31.7 26.1 20.1 25.8 33.3 30.1 17.9 21.0 24.8 23.9 24.7
Not applicable 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.1 1.9 1.0 0.2 2.6 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.4
Neither approve
nor disapprove 5.4 9.2 10.8 4.8 5.5 9.2 9.5 7.1 4.2 8.5 7.7 6.8 6.6 9.9 12.3 5.5
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
Courts
Yes 63.5 49.1 48.9 58.6 53.4 45.9 49.6 54.4 56.1 47.8 46.7 58.9 59.4 46.8 51.7 53.6
No 26.0 28.9 32.7 28.1 31.9 35.7 29.9 26.0 33.5 35.6 34.5 24.2 25.4 30.1 27.9 29.5
Not applicable 1.3 2.1 0.6 0.3 2.3 2.4 0.8 2.3 2.6 0.6 2.1 0.7
Neither approve
nor disapprove 5.5 8.7 11.2 4.9 5.7 9.8 9.4 7.3 4.7 8.5 8.6 6.8 6.4 10.1 11.7 5.8
DK/NA 3.7 11.1 6.5 8.4 8.7 6.2 8.8 12.3 4.9 5.7 7.6 10.2 8.1 10.8 8.0 11.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VIb
Age
18 - 35 36 - 50 50 +
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Police
Yes 66.8 51.5 52.8 66.2 65.9 54.7 55.5 58.9 62.4 51.1 55.0 61.2
No 21.9 29.2 26.9 17.8 24.3 28.5 24.5 22.9 24.0 28.9 28.2 24.0
Not applicable 0.7 2.0 0.1 2.1 0.2 0.3 1.4 1.6
Neither approve
nor disapprove 4.8 8.0 8.9 3.5 4.0 10.6 13.9 8.5 7.1 9.0 9.1 7.2
DK/NA 5.8 9.3 11.3 12.6 5.8 4.1 6.1 9.7 6.3 9.7 6.0 7.6
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
Courts
Yes 62.3 46.1 50.0 61.9 58.9 47.4 50.1 48.9 52.8 48.7 48.2 55.5
No 26.2 34.6 29.7 21.2 30.6 33.8 31.1 32.2 31.4 30.9 32.5 29.0
Not applicable 0.6 3.0 0.5 1.5 0.2 1.3 2.0 3.5
Neither approve
nor disapprove 4.6 7.4 8.5 4.0 4.2 12.4 13.1 8.8 7.5 8.9 10.2 6.9
DK/NA 6.3 8.9 11.3 13.0 6.3 4.9 5.6 10.1 7.0 9.5 5.7 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
Table VIc 65
Annual Report 2008

AREA
Police
Yes 34.8 51.1 46.1 39.1 53.5 63.1 49.1 44.4 39.3 40.8 42.2 51.0 70.8 76.8 66.9 77.3 77.2 72.5
No 41.9 31.0 39.5 43.9 32.7 33.5 30.3 44.8 26.1 28.4 19.0 21.6 14.6 15.2 13.3 13.3 9.7 14.7
Not applicable 3.1 2.4 0.4 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.9
Neither approve
nor disapprove 7.3 5.1 7.3 5.8 3.6 2.0 16.4 6.5 18.6 13.9 16.9 22.5 8.9 4.5 11.0 6.2 6.3 2.8
DK/NA 13.0 10.4 6.6 11.2 10.2 1.5 4.2 3.3 14.5 16.8 21.9 4.9 4.9 3.5 7.9 3.2 6.8 10.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Courts
Yes 33.3 47.7 41.8 37.1 49.9 50.6 37.0 44.4 35.8 35.6 40.7 43.8 65.2 67.5 60.3 68.0 66.1 62.2
No 42.1 34.4 42.8 46.9 35.6 42.9 45.2 45.8 30.6 31.8 21.3 28.2 19.2 18.6 18.8 22.2 19.8 20.1
Not applicable 3.8 2.4 1.9 1.4 0.5 1.2 4.7 1.5 0.7
Neither approve
nor disapprove 7.6 5.1 6.8 5.8 4.0 5.1 13.7 6.5 18.1 15.4 16.6 23.6 9.7 4.5 12.0 5.1 6.2 7.7
DK/NA 13.1 10.4 6.7 10.3 10.5 1.5 4.2 3.3 14.1 16.8 21.4 4.4 4.6 4.8 7.4 3.9 7.9 10.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table VIIa
How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the
following institutions? (%)
Gender
% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Police
Not at all 4.0 2.8 1.1 3.8 4.9 2.0 3.3 1.5 6.3 3.0 1.8 2.8 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.2
Slightly 19.6 9.2 18.0 16.5 11.6 12.4 16.1 15.2 15.0 11.9 16.2 16.5 15.3 10.1 17.6 15.0
To some degree 16.9 20.9 19.2 17.1 15.4 17.4 18.6 16.6 14.5 19.6 19.7 15.9 17.6 18.2 17.9 17.6
Quite 19.5 21.6 20.2 22.2 27.2 20.9 22.0 30.0 22.0 18.2 19.2 27.1 25.6 24.3 23.2 26.2
Very 40.1 45.4 41.4 40.4 40.9 47.3 40.0 36.8 42.2 47.2 43.0 37.7 38.9 45.7 38.2 38.9
TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Courts
Not at all 4.0 1.7 1.0 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.4 1.1 4.4 2.7 1.2 1.9 2.4 1.9 2.4
Slightly 17.1 6.8 15.7 16.7 12.6 10.1 12.9 12.3 14.7 9.9 11.8 13.5 14.5 7.4 16.3
To some degree 15.5 16.0 16.7 13.3 12.7 12.9 18.6 16.3 13.9 14.9 19.2 16.0 14.0 13.7 16.4
Quite 20.2 25.2 20.3 22.8 26.2 20.8 24.3 29.7 20.6 19.9 21.5 27.4 26.5 25.5 23.6
Very 43.3 50.3 46.4 44.6 45.5 53.5 41.8 40.6 46.4 52.6 46.2 41.2 42.6 51.5 41.4
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
66 Table VIIb
Annual Report 2008
18 - 35 36 - 50 51 +
Police
Not at all 4.8 1.9 2.6 3.2 4.5 2.3 1.8 0.8 4.3 2.7 2.6 2.5
Slightly 15.6 13.5 10.4 15.3 18.4 14.5 8.3 18.1 12.3 17.4 13.2 18.0
To some degree 15.6 18.7 20.3 15.9 11.8 17.4 20.7 17.0 19.5 20.2 16.7 22.9
Quite 21.1 26.6 24.2 21.4 26.2 25.9 18.9 23.1 24.6 25.5 19.6 20.1
Very 43.0 39.2 42.5 44.3 39.1 39.9 50.4 41.0 39.3 34.2 47.9 36.5
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
Courts
Not at all 3.5 1.5 1.9 3.1 3.6 2.6 0.8 0.8 3.2 3.0 2.3 0.8
Slightly 15.1 7.9 13.2 15.6 15.8 7.6 13.0 15.7 13.2 10.2 15.6 11.6
To some degree 15.6 14.6 16.2 15.5 11.1 16.5 19.1 13.4 14.4 12.4 18.6 15.7
Quite 20.6 25.4 23.0 24.2 25.8 21.0 21.1 29.5 24.7 20.6 23.0 27.5
Very 45.3 50.5 45.7 41.6 43.7 52.2 46.0 40.6 44.4 53.8 40.4 44.4
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 VIIc
AREA
Police
Not at all 2.6 3.1 2.7 4.5 4.3 3.0 5.8 2.6 1.3 0.6 3.1 0.8 2.7 2.0 0.6
Slightly 8.6 13.3 11.8 2.2 11.5 6.3 16.0 8.0 11.1 10.8 10.1 21.5 11.5 24.4 23.3 34.2 19.6 30.1
To some degree 12.8 16.7 13.5 11.3 13.5 5.2 24.0 8.4 22.6 14.1 21.5 25.7 24.1 20.1 22.9 27.8 19.5 24.7
Quite 15.5 15.9 18.1 21.5 22.5 24.7 33.4 39.9 27.8 31.7 29.8 22.3 23.7 34.8 22.9 20.3 31.0 17.5
Very 60.5 51.0 53.9 65.0 47.9 59.4 23.7 37.9 35.9 42.1 38.0 27.3 40.0 18.0 28.9 17.6 29.3 27.7
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

Undp Annual Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Undp Annual Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Undp Annual Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Report – 2008

Annual Report 2008

Political stability indicators

Institutional approval ratings

Economic and fiscal stability indicators

Incomes and social welfare indicators

Ethnic relations indicators

Annual Report 2008

Assistant Resident Representative,

Annual Report 2008

Graph 4 Trends in the Economic Stability Index Graph 5

Annual Report 2008

Annual Report 2008

Annual Report 2008

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

I POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

1. A year of political instability and profound institutional crisis

2. SAA signed, but lack of follow-up produces strong

2 For examples, see the third-quarter report.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

4. Support for European integration high

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

5. Support for the SNSD down

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

II INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BiH

1. Gridlock at BiH and FBiH levels reflect pervasive

2. Ethnic groups differ significantly over government

Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas

3. Support for OHR split on ethnic lines

Annual Report 2008 - Institutional Stability in BiH

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

III ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BiH

2. Unemployment still a major macro-economic problem

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

3. Retail prices up significantly over year, as Central Bank of

4. Trade deficit at worrying level

While the long-term impact of imports required

5. The public see economy as doing poorly

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

11 Source: Table VI in annex.

situation. To put it in the terms of one of the best

15 Source: Table X in annex.

Annual Report 2008 - Economic Stability in BiH

6. BiH institutions are too costly and time-consuming and

Graph 5 Graph 6 Transaction costs associated with

17 Source: Table XIII in annex.

20 Source: Table XVII in annex.

Annual Report 2008 - Political Stability in BiH

IV THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BiH

1. Economic situation worsens during 2008

1 Source: Table I in annex.

2. Idle capacity in every second company

3. Financial indicators for Bosnian companies getting worse

3 Source: Table III in annex.

Annual Report 2008 - Business Environment in BiH

Higher (%) The same (%) Less (%) N.A. (%)

4. Inefficient government, unfair practices, and the high tax