EARLY WARNING SYSTEM Third Quarterly Report September 2008 web edition

Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Development Programme

EARLY WARNING SYSTEM Third Quarterly Report September 2008

Although publication of this Report is supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) the opinions stated herein do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Deputy Resident Representative a.i.: Armin SIR^O Project Coordinator: Tarik ZAIMOVI]; Mersiha ]UR^I] Review by: Armin SIR^O, Deputy Resident Representative a.i. Editors: Tarik ZAIMOVI]; Desmond MAURER Authors: Dina DURAKOVI] M.A.; Adnan EFENDI] M.Sc. Aleksandar DRAGANI] M.A.; Ivan BARBALI] M.A. Fahrudin MEMI]; Edin [ABANOVI] M. Sc. Translation: Desmond MAURER Cover design: Mirna ]ESOVI] DTP & Layout: Samira SALIHBEGOVI]

CONTENTS
FOREWORD ..........................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................7 I POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH............................................................................................................15 Modest recovery of the Political Stability Index ..........................................................................15 1. Politically divisive period capped by EU warnings ..................................................................15 2. No change in level of political and economic pessimism........................................................17 3. Level of support for European integration steady ....................................................................18 4. Poll results in line with local election results ..........................................................................19 II INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BiH..................................................................................................21 1. Political crisis paralyses institutions ........................................................................................21 2. Shift in ethnic groups' ratings of government institutions ........................................................22 3. Confidence in OHR-led reforms suffers ..................................................................................24 III ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BiH ......................................................................................................25 Economic Stability Index recovers ..............................................................................................25 1. Industrial production up significantly ......................................................................................25 2. Unemployment down ..............................................................................................................26 3. Retail prices up significantly, as are Central Bank reserves ......................................................26 4. Trade deficit at alarming level..................................................................................................28 5. Public still pessimistic about the economic situation ..............................................................28 6. Institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina cost too much in both time and money ....................30 IV THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BiH ........................................................................................33 1. Business opinion poll results suggest economic situation deteriorating ..................................33 2. Industrial capacity in Bosnia and Herzegovina significantly underutilised ..............................34 3. Financial indicators deteriorating ............................................................................................35 4. Inefficient institutions, unfair competition, and high taxes are major burdens to business ......36 5. Direct and indirect costs caused by local institutions remain high ..........................................37 6. What are the consequences of the global financial crisis for the Bosnian economy? ..............38 V INCOMES AND SOCIAL WELFARE..................................................................................................41 The Social Stability Index up........................................................................................................41 1. Household income falling in the RS and in rural areas............................................................42 2. Elections impact public expectations ......................................................................................43 3. Purchasing power and standard of living unchanged ..............................................................45 4. Minimum wage and social welfare on the backburner ............................................................47 VI SOCIAL INCLUSION ......................................................................................................................49 1. Context ....................................................................................................................................49 2. No significant changes in expectations ....................................................................................50 3. Assessment of political situation worsens ................................................................................51 4. Levels of ethnic identification very high for minority samples in Serb and Bosniak majority areas ............................................................................................................52 VII ETHNIC RELATIONS ......................................................................................................................55 Ethnic Stability Index unchanged ................................................................................................55 1. Widespread manipulation of ethnic tensions ..........................................................................55 2. Increased sensitivity to ethnic rights ........................................................................................56 3. Support for minority return recovers ........................................................................................57 4. Ethnic distance increases ........................................................................................................57 5. Measures of ethnic pride up ....................................................................................................58 VIII PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY ............................................................................................61 Security Stability Index up two points ..........................................................................................61 1. No major security events during reporting period....................................................................61 2. Indicators mixed, but crime rate down overall ........................................................................62

% Political stability indicators Politically speaking, the situation in BiH is getting worse Would emigrate View EU membership with hope Think EU membership is important for political stability in BiH Support the process of joining the EU Institutional approval ratings Confidence in Presidency Confidence in Council of Ministers Confidence in FBiH Parliament Confidence in FBiH Government Confidence in RS National Assembly Confidence in RS Government Confidence in OHR Confidence in EU Economic and fiscal stability indicators Industrial production Unemployment Retail prices Foreign reserves Balance of trade Incomes and social welfare indicators Average wages Consumer basket/average wage Average pension Minimum pension Average pension/average wage Would emigrate Would protest over low income Households with < 500 KM a month Ethnic relations indicators Human rights violations related to ethnicity (reported) Accept return by refugees and displaced Willing to share country with other ethnic groups Strong pride in being citizen of BiH Concern that war might break out again Public support for ethnic parties Security indicators Illegal behaviour by police Level of crimes against property and person (reported by our sample) Number of requests for police assistance Public satisfaction with police assistance

2007 IV quarter 2.5 3.8 -2.9 7.9 6.4

I quarter -14 -3.4 8.9 1.8 4.5

2008 II quarter III quarter -17 -4 1.8 -1.3 -2.7 0.9 3.4 -7.4 -1.8 -1.6

-5.1 -6.4 -6.5 -7.1 -2.9 -2.2 6.8 5.7

4.3 4.9 5.9 6.6 -1.6 -2.4 -0.3 -0.3

-3.1 -4.3 -5.2 -5.6 -4.7 -4.3 -6.5 -3.5

0.2 1.4 2 1 1.3 1 2.6 0.6

6 2 -1

6 2 6 30 5

6 2 7 2

7 8 8 1

3 3 5 10 12 10

7 7 15 10 7

4 1.5 7 2 10 5 10

1 1 2 10 7

-1.3 1.1 -3 7.8 2.5

-3.5 2.5 -3.9 -5 -1.2

1.6 -1.5 0.5 -5.3 -10 3.9

-0.1 -5 1.5 -2.8 6.6 8.3

0.6 -1.5 1.5 5.9

-3.9 1 -1.9 -9.3

1.8 3.9 0.3 -30

-4.3 -0.1 0.9

FOREWORD
As the Early Warning System project enters a new year, we are forced with regret to note that its relevance has not decreased with time. As proof of this, we may offer the summary given in the foreword to last year's annual report, namely the list of most important current issues: "(i) the process of integration with Europe and the various associated reform processes, (ii) growing recognition of the need for major restructuring of the post-Dayton constitutional and institutional apparatus and the associated process of constitutional reforms, and (iii) the phasing out of direct international controls in favour of local ownership of and responsibility for the political process, as symbolized by the downsizing and eventual transformation of the Office of the High Representative into an Office of an EU Special Representative." While we must once again recognize that there has been a lack of progress with regard to these three processes, but furthermore, we also must unfortunately report regression and deterioration, discussed in some detail in the report. This lack of progress has been very clearly captured by the Early Warning Reports and by the movement of the stability indices in particular, over the year. We are particularly pleased with the improved analysis of trends, with better identification of cyclical or seasonal aspects (e.g. in income and expectations) and of patterns of congruence or mutual reinforcement (particularly between socio-economic and economic factors, on the one hand, and between political and ethnic issues, on the other). One thing this has made particularly clear is how much the political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina has benefited over the past several years from a countervailing economic lift. Thanks in part to the global downturn, this can no longer be expected to be the case. Under such circumstances, analysis of the sort contained in this report can only gain in significance and usefulness and the results of the 2008 opinion polls may be expected to make fascinating, if not always pleasant reading.
Armin Sir~o

Deputy Resident Representative a.i., UNDP BiH

EWS - Q3

Executive Summary
The third quarter of 2008 proved nearly as eventful for Bosnia and Herzegovina as the one that preceded it, and equally problematic. The most striking event of the quarter was the arrest and transfer to The Hague of Radovan Karad`i}, the wartime leader of the Bosnian Serbs and, along with Ratko Mladi}, the main war criminal remaining to be tried. As significant as it was, however, the reception it met with in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and even in Serbia, was anti-climactic, both in terms of the reaction of those who might have been expected to welcome it and those who might have been expected to oppose it. The former group, although taking a certain satisfaction in justice that is better late than never, find it difficult to ignore the fact that the fugitive was living openly in Belgrade and was even a public figure to a certain degree. The latter group find in it confirmation of the bias and injustice that they think characteristic of the international communitys approach to Serbia. Both see it primarily as a cynical move in the (increasingly transparent) dance of a thousand veils that constitutes relations between Brussels and Belgrade. In the end, it seems more likely to provide closure for the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the foreign media, and other members of the international community (following the failure of the Milosevic prosecution), than for the people of the region. It certainly seems unlikely to provide the shared understanding of the war, its causes, its course, and its consequences that is the only basis on which reconciliation will be able to take place. Otherwise, the quarter was marked by a worsening of the political situation. The key players on the Bosniak and the Bosnian Serb sides ramped up their rhetoric, and relations between them deteriorated further than many had thought the principals would be willing to allow. What is more, the rhetoric was all too often accompanied by concrete political initiatives designed to give it substance (particularly on the part of the RS Prime Minister and the National Assembly). The overall impression has been to make clear that both Dr. Silajd`i} and Mr. Dodik are not so much on collision course with the international community, as they are determined to show it to be a paper tiger. Each week Mr. Dodik tests the boundaries of the High Representatives and Brussels tolerance, and each week he takes a small but crucial step towards dismantling the few functioning state-level authorities (e.g. the state-level electricity transmission company, SIPA, and the indirect taxation authorities), while endowing the RS with de facto powers and responsibilities that infringe upon the few agreed prerogatives of the state-level (e.g. establishing quasidiplomatic offices abroad). In response and to cue, Dr. Silajdzic can be relied upon to use each opportunity thus proffered to advocate the abolition of the genocidal entity. The sad fact is that whatever the merits of Dr. Silajd`i}s position from a certain idealistic point of view, under the present configuration of Bosnian politics it is guaranteed to produce the opposite of what it advocates namely a process of mutually reinforcing schismo-genesis that will create a Bosnia and Herzegovina without an RS, and an RS outside Bosnia and Herzegovina. This will, moreover, be at a cost in both economic and human terms that is as easy as it is disturbing to imagine. It is against this background that the charade over the Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) with the European Union (EU) has reached its logical conclusion. The realization has slowly dawned that the local politicians in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia (and many of the international counterparts) have considerable experience in making promises and signing well-intentioned agreements that they have no intention of honouring in practice and that, as a result, leaving the central problems unresolved (to be dealt with later) has resulted in precisely that nothing has been resolved. Institutional and political gridlock continued through the quarter. This has not gone unnoticed by the electorate and while the local elections, held just at the end of the reporting period, were marked by unfortunate rhetoric, there was a not unimportant shift in the real balance of power. Support for Mr. Dodiks SNSD was down some 10 points on two quarters ago amongst the electorate of the RS, though this still leaves them well ahead of any competition and they swept the board in terms of election results. Similarly, while the position of Dr. Silajd`i}s party improved somewhat compared to recent polls (up five points on our previous poll, but only two points higher than in the first quarter), it came in third place amongst Bosniaks. In fact, it was the SDA that did best in the Bosniak majority areas, with a surge of nine points, bringing its support to 20% of the relevant electorate and thus just taking the honours from the SDP. This means that the moral leadership of the Bosniak block has reverted to Mr. Tihi} of the SDA, whose position is more moderate and who may be able to deal more constructively with Mr. Dodik, to the extent that the latter is willing to do so. In Croat areas, the HDZ also 7

EWS - Q3 experienced a surge of some 10 points in support amongst the relevant electorate. This was partly at the expense of the HSP and partly due to a reduction in the number of undecideds. This configuration seems likely to result in a more smoothly functioning policy of divide and rule (e.g. energy policy) and strategic appeasement of the international community, rather than an unambiguously constructive commitment to a common agenda for reform. (See Tables IX and X in the political stability section of the annex for more details on our poll results.) It is in respect to this situation that one should consider Transparency Internationals finding that Bosnia and Herzegovina is the most corrupt country in the region, as corruption and the enlightened self-interest of vested interests seems likely to be the main motive force in drawing the country back towards more active cooperation with Europe. As a result, there is as little prospect that the role of the High Representative will be altered or a real deadline set for the final transformation of the Office of the High Representative into one of the EU Special Representative as there has been at any point over the past five years. If anything, we can expect the European Union and the international community more generally to take an increasingly hard line with regard to the local political establishment and to rely increasingly on the High Representative, reinforcing the culture of irresponsibility. Finally, we may note that the global economic crisis has yet to bite fully in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is, no doubt, a reflection of Bosnias lower levels of foreign investment, less developed stock market, and lower levels of credit extension both to business and to households. On the other hand, there are grounds in our business survey results for supposing that its impact has just been delayed and will affect public opinion and economic statistics in the next several quarters, as profits and production levels fall. Still, indications are overall that the impact on the economy here will not be as severe as in some of the surrounding countries.

The Stability Indices

The potential for a new direction in politics and the economic time-lag are reflected in our surprisingly buoyant stability indices. The Stability Index for Bosnia and Herzegovina rose one point, from 59 to 60. It is to be noted that this small growth is in spite of the fact that Radovan Karad`i} was arrested, the SAA came into force, and local elections were being held. Moreover, it includes a correction from the major drop last quarter in the value of the Political Stability Index. This underlines how little room there remains in Bosnian political life for transformational events, in the absence of real change.
Graph 1. The BiH and sectoral stability indices

The upward movement in the overall index reflects positive movement in four of the five component indices, with only the Ethnic Stability Index remaining at the same value as last quarter. No index fell. The Political and the Security Stability Indices both saw a rise of two index points, while the Social and Economic Stability Indices both rose one point. The Ethnic Stability Index did not move. As a result, three of the indices are within one point of their long term averages, the exceptions being the Political Stability Index, which is 4.5 points below its long term average, and the Ethnic Stability Index, which is 8

EWS - Q3 three points above its average. The BiH Stability Index is 1.5 points below its long term average. As this suggests, the improvement in the indices is more likely to represent a correction than a recovery.

Sectoral Review
We shall now review each of the fields of analysis covered by the authors of this report in turn. As mentioned above, the Political Stability Index rose two points. This represents a minor correction to the major fall of five points last quarter and as such can hardly be considered evidence of significant improvement in political life. The signing of the SAA was the only recent political event that could have had a positive impact on the index. On the other hand, there has been a series of negative events and trends which have resulted in a sense of profound political and social crisis in the country. The very marked negative trends that we have noted for several quarters include the already alarming degree of dysfunction in state-level institutions, the failure to reach political compromise over key issues related to the future of the state, and the diametrically opposed positions taken by the political leaders vis--vis the future internal organization of the country. The holding of local elections in early October was certainly a contributing factor to the deepening political crisis as has become traditional, the run-up to the election was used to promote divisions within the electorate, while nationalist and radical rhetoric was used to score political points. This radical rhetoric would seem to have helped shore up support for its proponents (the SNSD and the Party for BiH), though perhaps not to the degree expected, but the main result may have been to send previously undecided voters into the arms of the SDA and the HDZ. The escalating political crisis is at least partly due to the passivity of the international community in the face of Bosnian politicians prepared to call into question the constitutional order and even the territorial integrity of the state they represent, not to mention to raise from the dead long-settled issues like the status of the state-level broadcaster and the creation of a Croat-language TV channel. The result is a worrying level of political instability. There are, however, signs that the international community's attitude to the situation in BiH may soon change. This is particularly evident from the fact that BiH has found itself on the agenda of a number of the most important European institutions, including the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, which condemned in no uncertain terms political conditions here, demanding that attention be refocused on matters of importance to the process of European integration. It remains to be seen whether these strong words will be translated into any concrete course of action. The best indicator of this is likely to be the position taken by the Peace Implementation Council's Steering Board at their next meeting in late November. Under the current political climate, the urgent need for constitutional reform has become clearer than ever if the state is to function at all and meet its obligations with regard to European integration. On the other hand, there has been little evidence of any true meeting of political minds in BiH over this issue and no solution seems likely to be found soon or simply. When it comes to institutional stability, as noted above, government gridlock was the keynote to yet another quarter in BiH. The hopes and expectations stirred by the signing of the SAA were soon deflated, at least with regard to any increase in legislative activity, the passing of new laws or regulations required to bring BiH law into line with EU law, or any signs of greater industry in government institutions. In fact, they became even less efficient, less coordinated, and less effective than before the SAA was signed. The affair of the Presidency Chair's addresses to the UN General Assembly and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, which were personal statements of grievance and as such repudiated by the Serb member of the Presidency, is fully indicative of the depth of the political and institutional crisis affecting the country. The failure to agree on how to represent the country to the world or on a platform that would reflect the interests and positions of all three members of the presidency is a stunning example of the impact of personal and party conflict on the operations of government institutions. No special analysis is required to understand the negative impact this must have on BiH's reputation abroad. The reaction of international institutions and officials to the situation here during the reporting period demonstrates clearly that international institutions have woken up to the fact that the crisis the state is going through is both endemic and lasting. Although no concrete action was taken by international institutions (led by the High Representative) to deal with or mitigate the political and institutional crisis affecting BiH, a general con9

EWS - Q3 sensus seems to have matured to the effect that active involvement by the international community remains necessary. The most important results of our survey related to political stability were: - The percentages of the various ethnic majority area samples who think that, politically speaking, BiH is headed in the wrong direction remained relatively stable, up just a couple of points in the FBiH (to 57% and 61% for the Bosniak and Croat majority area samples respectively), while unchanged in the RS, at 42%. This means that the major improvement (reduction in the number who think things are going in the wrong direction) last quarter has been largely preserved. See Table II on political stability. - By contrast, there has been a moderate increase in the percentage of the sample who would emigrate if they could (as high as 64.5% for the 18-35 age group). It is worth noting that both Bosniaks and Croats are significantly more inclined to emigrate than previously, while Serbs are less so. See Tables IV and V on political stability. - Overall support for integration with the EU remains stable at 75%, though there was a noticeable fall in support in Croat majority areas (down 11 points). Again, there was little change in the percentages who said they though EU membership was important for political stability in BiH, but there was an interesting and significant rise in the percentages who view the process with concern, up from approximately 17% to 23%. The decline is present across all three ethnic groups. See Tables VI, VII, and VIII on political stability. - Our poll of political preferences, which was taken after the election, shows the SDA and the SDP with nearly equal support in the FBiH (15.5% and 14.5%, respectively), with the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina considerably behind them at 8.7%, marginally ahead of the HDZ at 8.4%. The HDZ 1990 had 1.4%. In the RS, the SNSD had 35%, followed by the SDS at 13%, and the DNS at 3.6%. Percentages are at the level of the entity. See Tables IX and X on political stability. - The Serb sample was most likely to support current political arrangements, with between 30 and 40% saying the parties in government were doing a good job, should stay in power, etc. This compares to just 10% or below for the Bosniak sample. The Croat sample was between the two, but generally closer to the Bosniaks than the Serbs. See Table XI on political stability. - Bosniak and Croat approval ratings for government at both state and entity level did however improve in comparison to last quarter (though still only 30% and 35% respectively). Although Serb support in all levels of government has fallen 11% since the beginning of the year, it remained higher than for the other two ethnic groups (as high as 61% for the institutions of the RS). Interestingly, the approval ratings of both BiH and FBiH government institutions were higher in the RS than in the FBiH. See Tables I and II on institutional stability. - The approval ratings of the international organizations in BiH were divided strongly on ethnic lines. The Croat sample was the most critical of the international organizations active in BiH, with double digit falls in the approval ratings of all of them. Serb sample approval ratings also fell, but were nonetheless higher than the Croat samples. Bosniak sample approval ratings were up on last quarter, and were higher than for either of the other groups, with some organizations at or around 50%. Please refer to Table II on institutional stability. - There was no major change in overall support for the OHR, but this conceals a major rise (up 12.8 points) in Bosniak support and a concomitant fall (down 14.6 points) in Croat support, so that the latter are now the group expressing least support for the institution. There was also a definite drop in support for the various reform packages (or at least how they are being implemented) on the part of all three ethnic communities the fall is between five and 11 points depending on the reform and the group in question. Finally, there was no change in the percentages of the three groups who think that the High Representatives powers should be increased or decreased. It is worth noting that none of the three groups has a majority in favour of increasing them, while only the Serb group has a majority in favour of decreasing them - which looks rather like a mandate for the status quo. See Tables VI to IX on institutional stability. 10

EWS - Q3 As these selected results make clear, the Serb group is most likely to approve of the performance and behaviour of politicians, in particular its own, and to think that things are progressing as they should. This suggests a fairly high level of popular support in the RS entity for the politics of division. By contrast, the Bosniak group is the most likely to disapprove of the parties in power and to respond positively to signs that the international community may be about to increase its level of active involvement. These patterns were reflected in the fact that the SNSD received a renewed mandate for its position in the election, while the Party for BiH lost its status as first amongst equals in the Federation. The picture with regard to the Economic Stability Index is equally ambiguous, as it rose one point, an improvement which certain indicators would seem to undercut. This is, no doubt, due in part to a time lag in the indicators and in public opinion, so that the full impact of the global economic crisis has yet to be felt and the economic results remain in line with previous trends: - Industrial production was up 6.5 % in the FBiH and 8.2% in the RS during the first three quarters of 2008 on the same period in 2007. This is not a particularly sensitive measure of growth in recent months, however. See Table I on economic stability. - Unemployment was down 40,000 or 8% since the beginning of the year. This reduction is concentrated in the FBiH and took place largely over the summer. See Table II on economic stability. - Inflation during the first nine months of 2008 was around 8% in both entities. It affected agricultural produce and food, transport, and catering disproportionately, reaching as high as 20% for these categories in the RS. See Table III on economic stability. - Some 70% of the sample expect retail prices to continue rising. As most of the sample also expects their incomes to fall or not to change, this suggests many people are in for a period of falling living standards. It is no surprise, therefore, that a record 85% of the sample said they did not expect to save any money over the coming year. See Tables X to XII on economic stability. - Foreign reserves reached a record level of 6.8 billion KM during the third quarter. Given the likely impact of the global crisis on BiH, we expect this level to fall, or at least for growth to slow down. See Table IV on economic stability. - The trade deficit for the first nine months of 2008 was 7.2 billion KM, just 0.3 billion less than the total for 2007, suggesting that the year end figure may be as high as 9 billion KM. The export-import ratio is down to 41.7 %. See Table V on economic stability. - Public assessment of and expectations regarding the economy improved moderately, with an increase of approximately six points in the percentage who have experienced and/or expect no change, while the percentage who said that things were or would get worse fell approximately six points. See Tables VI to VIII on economic stability. - While the vast majority of our sample continue to say that government institutions cost them more than they should in terms of both money and the time required to get anything done, particularly in the FBiH, they still give the best marks to the institutions responsible for fiscal and monetary policy, i.e. the Central Bank, the Indirect Tax Authority, and the Entity Tax Administrations. The worst performing are the privatization agencies, the employment bureaux, and the courts. See Tables XIII to XVI on economic stability. Our business survey results are somewhat more negative overall, as a majority think that the economic situation in BiH is worse than it was a year ago and most of the rest think it has not improved. Moreover, their projections for the coming six months suggest there will be no change in a situation they have already described as bad. This is confirmed by their business results: - Some 40% said their companies were working at less than full capacity. See Table III on business sector stability. - Some 28% said their financial results had improved, which is down on last quarter when around 50% did. Moreover, only 31% said they expect them to improve in the coming six months. Overall, there would seem to have been a moderate financial deterioration in the business sector of BiH. See Tables IV and V on business sector stability. - Only 63% of companies said they had made a profit, which is considerably lower than in any previous survey. See Table VII on business sector stability. 11

EWS - Q3 - There are no major changes in the remaining results of our business survey, which continues to identify unfair competition, taxes, corruption, and most particularly the courts as major obstacles to efficient business. See Table XI on business sector stability. - Business agrees with the public that the best performing institutions are those responsible for monetary and fiscal policy. The worst performing are the courts, followed by the privatization agencies, the social funds (pensions and insurance), and the employment bureaux. See Table X on business sector stability, In closing, we would point out that BiH may be relatively insulated from the global economic crisis, but only thanks to the weakness of its economy, its lack of foreign investment, and its relatively low level of exports. The main negative impact will probably be on interest rates and a tightening of credit. A finding that deserves to be stressed is that only 22% of our business survey said the courts were doing even a passable job, while 65% identified them as a major obstacle to business. This tallies with the 27% in both majority areas of the Federation and the 40% of the population of the RS who think the courts are doing even a passable job. Moreover, only 55% of the RS sample, 46% of the Bosniak majority areas sample, and 33% of the Croat majority areas sample agreed to any extent that the courts would try to protect their contractual or real property rights the most basic function of the courts in any country. The contempt in which the courts are consistently found to be held by all sectors of society should set alarm bells ringing, particularly as they have supposedly already been reformed. This is, of course, one of the main reasons that people and businesses seek recourse so readily to informal channels to secure their rights. The Social Stability Index also rose one point, reversing the fall last quarter. Too much should not be read into this, however, as there was a major rise in the number of low-income households (less than 500 KM in income per month) in both the RS and Brcko District, of 10% and 20% respectively. See Tables I and II on social stability. This increase in poverty took place particularly in rural areas, which is contrary to what would normally be expected after the summer, as seasonal income should have kicked in (the pattern in previous years). There was also a modest increase in the percentage of people in all three areas who described their standard of living as below average (37.2% in the FBiH, 50% in the RS, and 78% in Brcko District). See Table XVII on social stability. These findings for the RS are particularly interesting as the average salary and average pensions in this Entity have been rising both steadily and considerably, having reached parity with the FBiH. On a more positive note, there were no major changes in purchasing power and living standards, as stable incomes combined with falling commodity prices and rising utilities. This follows a period of steeply rising incomes and prices, particularly in the RS, where a rise of 21% in the average salary since December means it is now higher than in the FBiH (765 KM and 763.5 KM, respectively), which is therefore continuing to cushion those who do receive a salary from the economic crisis. See Tables XIII and XIV on social stability. Finally, we note that there was a general reduction in the percentages of the samples in both entities, but not in Brcko District, who are willing to support public protests and strikes. See Table XI on social stability. The Interethnic Stability Index was the only one not to see a rise this quarter. This is not unexpected, as it experienced a jump of four points last quarter and the run up to the October elections was hardly conducive to even further gains. On the other hand, it underlines the extent to which the arrest of Radovan Karadzic has been interpreted in the light of negotiations between Serbia and the EU, rather than as reflecting any underlying change in relations between ethnic groups. Reference to Prime Minister Dodiks announcement that the RS would be taking legal action against the UN and the Dutch Government for their failure to protect Serb villages around Srebrenica from the besieged inhabitants, his declaration that the anniversary of genocide in Srebrenica should be declared an official day of mourning for all Serbs from the RS who lost their lives during the war, and the wrangling over whether the badly needed census should gather ethnic data (and so act to confirm the results of ethnic cleansing during and after the war) are sufficient indication that divisive ethnic politics continued as usual (or indeed at a heightened level) and of the direction from which the major stimulus is coming. 12

EWS - Q3 Our individual indicators show an increase in the percentage of the majority who had not experienced any form of harassment or abuse due to their ethnicity over the previous twelve months in Bosniak majority areas and of both samples in Serb majority areas. This resulted in a major fall in the percentage of the minority population in these areas who said they have suffered from harassment on more than one occasion (from 9% to 2.5%). There was, however, a major fall in the majority sample percentage in Croat majority areas who said they had been harassment free (down 10%), but no major change in the minority sample percentage. This is a clear indicator of Croat alienation in the run up to the election. See Tables I a-c. Majority support for minority return was up moderately in Bosniak majority areas, but minority sample support fell again, down to 88%. There was an even greater fall in majority population support in Croat majority areas, down 20 points to 61%, and a lesser fall in Serb majority areas, down three points for the majority sample and two points for the minority, so 81% and 80% respectively. The worrying indicator of last quarter has thus worsened, again with the accent on Croat disaffection. This is confirmed by our measures of ethnic distance, with a 10 point drop in the Croat majority area sample who are ready to live in the same country as Bosniaks or have them for neighbours, but a drop of 20 points in the percentage who think it is acceptable to send their children to the same schools. There was a similar but less marked drop in willingness for coexistence with Serbs. As a result, for the first time, Serbs are more acceptable to Croats than Bosniaks in most categories. This seems likely to be the result of tensions related to the election and the far lesser likelihood of actually living in the same community as a Serb. See Tables IV to VI on ethnic stability. There was a similar drop in Serb majority areas with regard to both Bosniaks and Croats, across the board. There was little change in the results for Bosniak majority areas, where they remain much the highest in any case. It is worth pointing out that around 95% of the Bosniak majority areas sample is open to coexistence in almost all categories, compared to less than 70% of either the Serb or Croat majority area samples. We also note increases in the sample percentage who said they felt a strong degree of pride in their ethnicity, particularly in urban areas. In short, there was a reduction in ethnic pride in the Bosniak majority areas majority sample, but a rise for the minority one (up 10 points). In Croat majority areas, the situation was reversed, with a rise for the majority and a fall for the minority (down 12 points). In the RS, majority sample pride rose seven points, while minority sample pride rose 11. This clearly reflects tensions related to the elections and political confrontation more generally. There was a concomitant reduction in pride in being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina in both Croat and Bosniak majority areas, for both samples, but an increase in the RS for both. Only 21% of the Serb ethnic sample, however, expressed any degree of pride in being citizens of BiH. This compares to 36% of the Croat ethnic sample and 81% of the Bosniak sample. See Tables VIII and IX on ethnic stability. Finally, we find an increase in the percentages of the Croat and Bosniak majority area majority samples who agreed with the thesis that the withdrawal of EUFOR might reopen the possibility of war here. There was a decrease in the percentage of the Serb majority area majority sample and of the minority samples in all three areas who believed this to be possible. See Table X on ethnic stability. Moving to our final section, we have seen that the Security Stability Index rose two points. At a very general level this is justified, as there were no major shocks to public order or safety during the reporting period and the memory of the shocking examples of juvenile delinquency early in the year fade. The main breach of public order, the violence that marked the opening of the first Queer Festival in Bosnia and Herzegovina, will have had little impact on public opinion, as a majority (of both the public and the authorities) are unfortunately likely to have agreed with those carrying out the violence, rather than the victims. The damage done to Bosnias image abroad is, in this case, unfortunately justified. Our indicators show that the percentages of the sample reporting that they have suffered some form of crime against property or the person are down significantly for the minority samples, but up for those in the majority. The following graph, based on Table I on public security, presents the cumulative percentages for each sample (i.e. the sum of the percentages who said they had suffered 13

EWS - Q3 any one of the various forms of crime). The much higher reported incidence for both the Croat and Bosniak majority areas minority samples in the past two quarters is clear, as is the fact that it is now the Croat majority area majority sample that is most likely to say they have suffered some form of crime, followed by the other two majority samples and the Croat minority sample.
Graph 2. Percentage of sample who have been victim of some crime against the person or property during past three months

Interestingly, there was a reduction across the board in the percentage who sought police assistance, with the sole exception of the Serb majority areas majority population. See Table II. The major rise in dissatisfaction rates with police assistance received that we noted last quarter reversed itself almost entirely, this time in every category. See Table III. There was a similar reverse in the incidence of arrest without warrant and a more moderate reduction in the percentages who said they had witnessed the clear abuse of police powers during the previous three months. See Tables IV and V on public security. Finally, given our comments on the courts above, it is important to note that in spite of the general improvement in the rating of the police and reduction in the level of crime reported by our sample, the approval rating of both the police and the courts fell for all groups in the Federation of BiH, as well as for the majority sample in the RS. The RS minority samples opinion of the courts did not change. The pattern was similar with regard to the percentage who thought corruption is widespread in both the police and the courts an increase in the FBiH and a reduction in the RS. See Tables VI and VII on public security.

14

II III IV V VI VII VIII

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

Modest recovery of the Political Stability Index

After a dramatic fall in the value of the index last reporting period, there was a moderate recovery this quarter, to 50 index points. Regardless of this upward correction, it is clear that Bosnia and Herzegovina is passing through the greatest period of political instability since this report was instituted. The values of the index both this and last quarter are the lowest two consecutive measurements since May 2000. The signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Commission during the second quarter is in reality the only political event that could have had a positive impact on the index. On the other hand, there has been a series of negative events and trends which have resulted in a sense of profound political and social crisis in the country, which is faithfully represented by the value of the index. The very marked negative trends which we have noted for several quarters include the already alarming degree of dys-functionality of the state-level institutions, the failure to reach political compromise over key issues related to the future of the state, and the diametrically opposed positions taken by the political leaders vis-a-vis the future internal organization of the country. The holding of local elections in early October was certainly a contributing factor to the deepening political crisis as has become traditional, the run-up to the election was used to promote divisions within the electorate, while nationalist and radical rhetoric was used to score political points.

1. Politically divisive period capped by EU warnings

Yet another extremely political unstable period lies behind us, with further radicalization of political life, constant conflict between the political representatives of the three peoples, and de facto gridlock in state-level government institutions. As expected, the local elections held on the 5th 15

EWS - Q3

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

of October contributed to further radicalization of political life. The run-up to the elections brought, as is now the norm, additional ethnic and political polarization, so that political life has become a training ground for letting off nationalist passions and orientation of the electorate on ethnic lines. On the one hand, ever more explicit threats of seccession have been coming from the political leaders of the smaller entity, while the status of the Republika Srpska has been questioned openly in the Federation, and Croat representatives have begun advocating the creation of a third entity again. Again to form, this political rhetoric has not created a political climate conducive to any type of constructive dialogue or activity, so that the work of the institutions of state has remained extremely ineffective and politicised, incapable of meeting the EU's requirements regarding integration.1 The local political scene did not change significantly as a result of the local elections. According to the report of the Central Electoral Commission (which is still subject to change following requests for recounts), the SDA, SNSD, and HDZ did best, while the SDS, SDP, and Narodna stranka radom za boljitak improved their standing. The main losers were the Stranka za BiH and the HDZ 1990. Consequently, on the basis of currently available data, the SNSD took the mayorship in 39 municipalities, the SDA in 36, the HDZ and SDS in 16, the SDP in 9, the Stranka za BiH in 4, and the HDZ 1990 in 3. The SDA was the leading party in terms of number of councillors and committee members, followed by the SNSD, SDP, SDS, HDZ, and Stranka za BiH.2 No progress was registered during the reporting period with regard to the reform processes on which further progress towards integration with Europe depends. With regard to public broadcasting reform, there was significant interference of politics in the work of the public broadcaster. The first move was by the RS Prime Minister, Milorad Dodik, who stated his view that the state-level broadcaster should be wound up, after which the board of governors of the broadcaster sacked the Director General, Mehmed Agovi}, who in turn questioned the legality and legitimacy of the decision. In the legislature, at the beginning of September, the House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina outvoted the Bosniak caucus and passed a binding resolution requiring the Council of Ministers to begin preparations for the creation of a Croatian language television channel. While it is clear that no such channel can be created by decision of the Council of Ministers, these activities are indicative of the near impossibility of creating consensus regarding this reform, which is nonetheless one of the conditions for closer relations with the European Union. One of the most important events to take place during the reporting period, not just for Bosnia and Herzegovina, but for the entire region, was the arrest of Radovan Karad`i}, wartime president of the Republika Srpska. Karad`i}, who had been in hiding for 13 years, was living in Belgrade under a false identity, where he was arrested on the 21st of July by the Serbian security services. The arrest led to protests in Belgrade, organized by the Serb Radial Party, but most of the public both in Serbia and in other countries in the region welcomed it. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the arrest was received very positively by the public and the considerable majority of political figures, and welcomed unanimously by the representatives of the international community. The arrest of Karad`i} (after which the Serbian security services arrested another fugitive from The Hague, Stojan @upljanin) has to some degree relaxed international pressure on Serbia related to insufficient cooperation with the Hague Tribunal, though it did not lead to the unfreezing of the Provisional Agreements with the EU.3 Karad`i} appeared in front of the court in The Hague, but the trial itself did not begin during the reporting period.4 Another event during the reporting period from the courts at The Hague caused a stir both amongst the public and in political life. The former Commander of the Army of the Republic of

2 3

For more see the section on institutional confidence. We should also note that the election campaigns were generally not focused on themes of local interest. According to election monitoring conducted by the non-governmental agency ACIPS, in only 34% of cases did politicians discuss themes that were relevant to the local election, while in 65% of cases they discussed themes that were irrelevant to the local community. See http://www.acips.ba/bhs/index.php?strana=aktuelnost&id=285 Results available at www.izbori.ba. The foreign ministers of the EU members were unable to agree over the unfreezing of the Provisional Agreements which regulate trade relations under the SAA; the Netherlands were against it until Serbia fully cooperates with The Hague and arrests the remaining fugitives. At their request, it was decided that the ratification of the SAA and the application of the Provisional Agreement be delayed until the Council of Ministers confirms full cooperation by Belgrade with The Hague. The Hague prosecutor's office has reworked the indictment against Karad`i} to take into account the Tribunal's current practice, in order to ensure a more effective and expeditious trial.

16

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

EWS - Q3

Bosnia and Herzegovina, pensioned general Rasim Deli}, was sentenced to three years in prison on the grounds of command responsibility for crimes carried out by the El Mud`ahid order in Central Bosnia between June 1993 and September 1995. While the sentence is not final, as the court's Appeals Council has still to rule on it, it provoked very negative reaction in the Republika Srpska, whose political representatives characterised the laxity of the sentence as shameful and inadequate, stressing that this is just one more in a series of indications of bias at the tribunal. Testimony as to the depth of the political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina was provided at two international events held during September the session of the UN General Assembly and the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe events at which the state-level Presidency was unable to agree on the Presidency Chair's address.5 At the session in September, the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina on the basis of its Monitoring Team's Report. The Resolution found that Bosnia and Herzegovina had not met the obligations it accepted when it became a member. Moreover, they condemned all declarations or activities which brought into question the integrity of the state or its current constitutional arrangements, as well as obstruction of the work of state institutions.6 They also called for the removal of discriminatory provisions in the Constitution related to the election of members of the Presidency of BiH and the House of Peoples, proposing a reform of the system of entity-based voting in the BiH Parliament. As expected, this Resolution met with mixed reactions in BiH; while it was welcomed by representatives of the Bosniak people and the response of Croat politicians was relatively muted, politicians from the Republika Srpska entirely rejected the parts of the Resolution which related to the view that the Republika Srpska was obstructing the work of state-level institutions, as well as those regarding the need for reform of the Constitution and the abolition of entitybased voting. While the resolution is not binding, it has a symbolic and moral force, as Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a member of this oldest of European organizations, has an obligation at least to meet the conditions under which it was received as a member. The political crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina has put the state once more at the centre of attention of the European institutions. Thus the European Parliament passed a Resolution on Bosnia and Herzegovina on the 23rd of October which clearly states that Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it exists today, divided, politically radicalised, and without political consensus regarding the path towards Europe, has no place in the European Union. The need for change was confirmed when the Commissioner for EU Enlargement stated that constitutional reform is necessary if Bosnia and Herzegovina is to progress on the path towards European Union membership.

2. No change in level of political and economic pessimism

After the fall in public pessimism regarding the political situation noted during the first two quarters of 2008, there was no further significant change this quarter. Some 51% of the total sample said that the situation in the country is getting worse, while 36% said it was getting better. There were no
Table II Politics in BiH are getting.....?
Ispitanici Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % Worse 78.8 54.4 57.2 Better 16.1 31.7 31.8 DK/NA 5.1 13.9 11.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 57.7 57.5 61.5 26.5 27.9 23.3 15.8 14.6 15.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 57.3 42.5 42.5 30.6 43.0 42.0 12.2 14.5 15.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

5 6

For details, see the section on institutional confidence. The text is available at http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta08/ERES1626.htm

17

EWS - Q3

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

major changes for the Serb or Bosniak samples, with a moderate increase of 4.1% in pessimism amongst Croats, making them the most pessimistic group (Tables I and II in annex). The situation is similar with regard to the sample's views on the economic situation in which BiH currently finds itself. Some 62.5% describe the situation as bad, with 24.2% calling it very bad and 38.4% generally bad. Only 3.6% describe it as good. When we look at the ethnic samples, we find that the percentage of of the Bosniak sample who described the economic situation as bad was up 5.6 points on last quarter, while the percentage of Serbs of this opinion was down 9.5 points. Amongst Croats, there were no major changes. The sample from Bosniak majority areas was the most critical of the economy, while the sample from Croat majority areas was least so (Table III in annex). Somewhat fewer of the Republika Srpska sample than last quarter described the economic situation in that entity as poor (55% compared to 61.4%) and there has been a moderate rise in the percentage who think it has improved (26.1% up from 17.5%) (Tables IIIa and IIIb in annex). During the reporting period, 41.6% of the total sample would emigrate if they could (up from 38.2% last period). The youngest age group (18-35) remain the one most likely to want to emigrate, 64.5%. The sample for Bosniak majority areas showed the greatest change in level, with a rise of 11.4 points in the percentage who would emigrate. There was a rise of 5.3 points for the sample from Croat majority areas, while there was a reduction of 6.5 points for the sample from Serb majority areas (Tables IV and V in annex).

3. Level of support for European integration steady

There was no change in the level of support for the process of integration with Europe during the reporting period, with 75.6% of the total sample in favour, 50.9% strongly in favour, and 24.7% generally in favour. The only relevant change was for the Croat group, where support fell some 11.3 points (to 65.0% from 76.4%). The reduction is due to an increase in the percentage of uncommitted. No such changes took place for the other two groups, with Bosniaks convincingly the most supportive (88%) and Serb support at much the same level as Croat (Table VIII in annex). Public opinion regarding the importance of integration with Europe for political stability here was also very similar to the preceding period, with 77.3% of the total sample of the view that EU membership is important in this regard. There was a minor change within this group, with a reduction of 7.4 points in the percentage who think the process is very important and a rise of 5.6 points in the percentage who consider it generally significant. When we look at the ethnic breakdown, we find that Bosniaks are still most likely to support the thesis (88.9%), followed by the Croats (74.2%), and then the Serbs (64.4%). There was a five point reduction in the Serb sample percentage (Table VII in annex). There was, however, an increase in the percentage who look on the process of integration with Europe with concern, with 22.8% now expressing such a view (up from 16.9% in the second and 18.2% in the first quarter). We find the same change with regard to the ethnic samples, with more than half of all three groups looking on integration with Europe with hope, with Bosniaks first (78.3%), followed by Croats (66.4%), and then Serbs (56.6%) (Table VI).
Table VI You look at the process of BiH joining the EU with....
All Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % % % % % % % % % % Hope 73.0 74.8 67.4 85.8 86.0 78.3 61.8 69.9 66.4 62.1 63.2 56.6 Concern 18.2 16.9 22.8 9.5 7.3 15.9 27.3 24.4 27.0 24.7 25.4 27.3 DK/NA 8.8 8.3 9.8 4.7 6.6 5.8 10.9 5.8 6.6 13.1 11.4 16.0 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 EWS by Prism Research

18

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

EWS - Q3

4. Poll results in line with local election results

Our poll results on public support for the political parties are generally in line with the results the parties achieved at the October local elections. In the Federation, our poll showed that the SDA would be the party chosen by most people as representing a political point of view close to their own (15.5%), followed by the SDP (14.5%), the Stranka za BiH (8.7%), the HDZ (8.4%), the BPS (2.5%), and the HDZ 1990 (1.4%). We also note that nearly all these parties did better during the reporting period than in the previous one and that the percentage who would not support any party was down (to 25.9% from 35.4%), though the number clearly remains high. Asked to identify the party that most closely represents their point of view, the Republika Srpska sample were most likely to choose the SNSD (35.3%), followed by the SDS (13%), and the DNS (3.6%). We also note that the SDS and the DNS did better than in the previous period, and that, as in the Federation, the number who would not choose any party was down (to 24.6% from 32.4%) (Table IX in annex). The results by ethnic group are similar, with Serbs most likely to support the SNSD and SDS, Croats the HDZ and HDZ 1990, and Bosniaks the SDA, SDP, and the Stranka za BiH (Table X in annex). This reporting period, the Serb sample was again the most supportive of the parties in government, with support back up to the level of the first quarter, after a dip during the second quarter. Thus, 40.3% of this group agreed with the thesis that the parties in government are relatively successful in defining and implementing key reforms, while 35.9% think the parties are capable of meeting the conditions for further progress towards European integration on time, and 33.7% think they deserve to remain in government. The Bosniak group's views of the parties in government are diametrically opposed to those of the Serbs. Just 10.2% think the parties are reasonably good at defining and implementing key reforms, 8.7% think them capable of meeting EU integration conditions on time, while 61.3% think they do not deserve to remain in office. The Croat group were even less supportive of their performance, with just 8.3% holding the view that they are relatively good at defining and implementing key reforms, 5.4% thinking them capable of meeting EU integration conditions, and 40.4% of the view that they do not deserve to remain in office. There was however also a high percentage amongst the Croats (between 35% and 42%) with no clear opinion as to the effectiveness of the parties in government, a trend that has been present since the beginning of the year.

19

II III IV V VI VII VIII

INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH

1. Political crisis paralyses institutions
The political crisis has had a very negative impact on the work of the state institutions. During the third quarter, their operations saw the continuation of a highly negative trend, the politicisation of decision-making processes, leading to extreme ineffectiveness in their operations, so that the dividing lines between the representatives of the three constitutive nations have never been more evident. One of the results of the crisis has been that the institutions are incapable of responding to the EU's demands and meeting the conditions for further integration with Europe. After the signing of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU, Bosnia took on the obligation to meet a series of conditions for eventual membership. Of the 30 short-term priorities placed before Bosnia and Herzegovina by the EU, only 13 had been met by the end of September, in whole or part, while the others remain at the stage of political wrangling. The personal conflict between Haris Silajd`i}, the Chair of the Presidency, and Milorad Dodik, the Prime Minister of the Republika Srpska, has had a major impact on the functioning of the state institutions, as it has transferred to the institutional realm. The most striking examples of institutional dysfunction at state level came from the Presidency. The members of this august body were unable to agree a platform for the delegation participating in two major international assemblies held during September the session of the United Nations General Assembly and the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. Failure to agree a platform for participation in the UN General Assembly is due to the lack of a common position on the part of the Presidency members regarding support for Serbia's motion that the agenda include a request for an opinion from the International Court of Justice as to the legality of the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo.1 As a result of this disagreement, the speech made by Presidency Chair Silajd`i} to the General Assembly was a presentation of his personal views and provoked sharp reaction in the Republika Srpska.2 A similar thing happened with the Presidency Chair's speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which again represented his personal views and not the official view of Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to failure to agree on the part of the Presidency.3 The Report of the Council of Europe's Monitoring Team and the Resolution passed by the Assembly in session provoked divisions within the delegation of Bosnian and Herzegovinian parliamentarians attending, as the parliamentarians from the Republika Srpska took issue with the parts of the report which refer to the Republika Srpska blocking reforms. Much the same happened within Bosnia and Herzegovina, where Republika Srpska politicians

1 2 3

Presidency member Neboj{a Radmanovi} was for support by Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the Presidency Chair Haris Silajd`i} was against and Presidency member @eljko Kom{i} abstained. Silajd`i} put forward his views on the recent war, the genocide committed at Srebrenica by the Army of the Republika Srpska, and the need to negate the results of genocide. The Chair Silajd`i} stated that the BiH Constitution contains discriminatory provisions and that entity based voting represents "genocide by other means."

21

EWS - Q3

INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH

rejected the views expressed in the Resolution, in so far as they related to the Republika Srpska itself, while it was received positively for the most part in the Federation. During the reporting period, the representatives of the Republika Srpska, led by the Prime Minister, continued to question the integrity of the country (which they linked with questions raised about the status of the Republika Srpska within the state), as well as raise the issue of authorities transferred to the state level by agreement of the entities. During the reporting period, this went beyond rhetoric and concrete steps were taken in certain areas which are the responsibility of the state. In early September, the Republika Srpska government expressed determination to begin the process of forming its own company for the transmission of electrical energy on the territory of the Republika Srpska and to withdraw from the state-level transmission company, Elektroprenos BiH, to which responsibility for this area had been transferred. A further move which has been assessed as obstruction of the state-level institutions by the Republika Srpska government is the decision on the 11th of September instructing the entity Tax Administration and other institutions not to hand over documentation to the State Intelligence Services (SIPA) or the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Prosecutor's Office, which had been sought with regard to the tax records of two companies, the RS government, and a number of ministries. Only after sharp intervention by the High Representative and the ambassadors of members of the Steering Board of the Peace Implementation Council, the RS Government agreed to deliver the documentation requested. The Republika Srpska government also continued opening offices abroad. This served as the occasion for Presidency Chair Haris Silajd`i} to accuse the entity administration of violating the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the grounds that the Republika Srpska had engaged lobbyists in the US to promote the Republika Srpska as an independent foreign policy agent. Silajd`i} also confirmed that he had requested the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to rule on the constitutionality of these activities. The National Assembly of the Republika Srpska held a special session in mid-September to discuss internal political relations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political representatives of the Republika Srpska sharply opposed efforts to question to continued existence of the Republika Srpska, condemning the speeches made by the Presidency Chair at the UN and the Council of Europe, which they interpreted as a call for the abolition of the Republika Srpska. It was again stressed that many of the entity's authorities had been illegally transferred to the level of the state and a call was made for an analysis to be conducted, with a view to restoring them to the entity. Although expected, there was no mention in the resolution passed on that occasion of the possibility of holding a referendum on independence,4 due largely to sharp warnings by the Office of the High Representative. It should be noted that the activities of the international community, and in particular of the Office of the High Representative, during the reporting period were limited to warnings to local politicians for their radical rhetoric or for public displays in which they openly advocated options which were clearly against the Dayton order. With regard to the Federation, after the presentation of the local election results, there were moves by the SDA and HDZ to restructure the government. This is because of the poor election results of two of the coalition parties, the Stranka za BiH and the HDZ 1990, and the increasingly poor relations between representatives of the SDA and the Stranka za BiH.5 At the time of writing, it was not clear whether there would be a restructuring.

2. Shift in ethnic groups' ratings of government institutions

When we look at the sample as a whole, we find that there were no major changes during the reporting period in the ratings for government institutions at all levels. Some 38% of the sample reported confidence in state-level institutions, while confidence in entity institutions was at the same level.

4 5

The possibility of a referendum should there be any 'move' on the 'sovereignty' of the Republika Srpska was mentioned in the report that was also passed, but it is not binding. We discussed how these poor coalition relations manifested themselves in the first and second quarterly reports.

22

INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH

EWS - Q3

The municipal level continues to score the highest level of public support, at 46.5% of the total sample (Table I in annex). When we look at the results by ethnic group, we note differences in comparison to the previous period. After the reduction in confidence expressed during the past two reporting periods by all three ethnic groups with regard to all levels of government, there was a correction this quarter with regard to the Bosniak group, whose support for all levels increased. Bosniaks remain the most critical group, nonetheless, with support for state and federal government at around 30%, confidence in the Republika Srpska institutions at 22%, and in the municipal level at 38%. When it comes to the Croat sample, we note a moderate rise in confidence in state and federal institutions (now between 32% and 35%), but a fall in the approval ratings of all other levels. There was a considerable drop in Serb confidence in all levels of government, though it nonetheless remained higher than for the other two groups. The Serb group's approval rating for state level was around 45%, for federal institutions was around 42%, and for municipal level was 58.6%, while for the Republika Srpska government and National Assembly it was as high as 61%. We should still note that the Serb constituency approval rating for the Republika Srpska institutions has been steadily falling, so that it was 11 points down this quarter on the beginning of the year (Table II in annex).
Table II Do you approve of the work of.?
Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % BiH Presidency Yes 28.2 25.3 31.8 No 47.8 49.4 50.7 Not applicable 0.8 4.7 1.0 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.7 7.2 8.7 DK/NA 11.4 13.5 7.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 BiH Parliament Yes 28.1 23.6 30.5 No 47.6 51.3 50.7 Not applicable 0.8 4.7 0.9 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.8 6.9 8.8 DK/NA 11.6 13.5 9.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Council of Ministers Yes 27.7 22.9 30.8 No 47.5 50.9 51.8 Not applicable 0.8 5.1 0.9 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.3 7.5 8.8 DK/NA 11.6 13.7 7.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 46.6 21.7 1.9 17.6 12.2 100.0 46.3 22.2 1.7 17.2 12.6 100.0 45.8 22.6 1.5 17.5 12.6 100.0 31.4 48.3 1.9 13.6 4.8 100.0 31.1 50.1 0.8 13.1 4.8 100.0 30.7 51.8 0.6 12.4 4.5 100.0 32.4 33.4 3.2 18.2 12.8 100.0 33.4 33.6 2.0 17.5 13.5 100.0 35.0 32.0 2.0 17.5 13.5 100.0 Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 52.9 26.0 0.6 16.6 4.0 100.0 52.9 25.9 1.0 16.2 4.0 100.0 53.5 25.2 0.8 16.4 4.0 100.0 53.9 27.3 2.4 10.8 5.6 100.0 53.6 27.6 2.4 10.6 5.9 100.0 53.6 28.0 2.4 10.1 5.9 100.0 45.7 30.3 1.4 14.6 7.9 100.0 44.7 31.2 2.1 14.1 7.9 100.0 45.9 30.1 1.8 13.8 8.4 100.0

When it comes to the approval ratings of the international community and its organisations, we note significant changes for all three ethnic samples this quarter. Taking the sample as a whole, we note a moderate rise in support for all international institutions, now above 40% (except for the US, whose support is at 36.7%). If we look at the results for the various ethnic groups, we find significant differences with regard to the views of the Croat and Bosniak groups. There has been a very significant reduction in the Croat group's support for all the institutions of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina a fall of 13.2 points for OSCE (to 32.5%), of 12.8 points for UNDP (to 35.1%), of 14.9 points for EUFOR (to 32.3%), of 11.1 points for the EU (to 35.9%), and of 16.5 points for the US (to 32.2%). This means that the Croat group are the most critical one with 23

EWS - Q3

INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH

regard to international institutions this quarter. Bosniak opinion moved in the opposite direction, with support for all international institutions up 10% (except the US, where there is no change in support). During the quarter, 49.7% of the Bosniak sample expressed confidence in OSCE, 49.9% in UNDP, 50.4% in EUFOR, 46.7% in the EU, and 42.7% in the US. The Serb sample is somewhere in the middle, after seeing a moderate drop in approval ratings this quarter: 39.8% expressed confidence in OSCE, 38.2% in UNDP, 34.2% in EUFOR, 37.6% in the EU, and 29.4% in the US (Tables I and II in annex).

3. Confidence in OHR-led reforms suffers

The general level of support for the Office of the High Representative was relatively unchanged this quarter, compared to last quarter, at 42.9%, with women a little more inclined to express support (45.2%) than men (40.5%). The levels of confidence expressed by the different ethnic groups were also very uneven. Bosniaks expressed the highest level of support this quarter (51.4%, up 12.8 points), followed by the Serb sample (35.2%, a minor reduction on the previous quarter), and Croats (31.5%, a decline of 14.6 points) (Tables I and II in annex). While the level of overall support for the Office of the High Representative has remained on much the same level, support for the various reforms conducted by the office has taken a hit with regard to all three ethnic groups. We find much the same level of support for individual reforms amongst Serbs and Croats. The Serb group's support for political reforms is 26.7%, for economic reforms is 24.8%, for anti-corruption reforms is 29.7%, and for public administration reforms is 32.3%. There has been a reduction in support by this group for economic and public administration reforms (of 8.5 and 5.8 points, respectively), while support for political and anti-corruption reforms is at the same level as before (Table VII in annex). There was a significant drop in Croat sample support for all reforms, except anti-corruption reforms. Support for political reforms dropped 7.4 points (to 30.2%), for economic forms 7.7 points (to 30.6%), and for public administration reform 6.3 points (to 28%). For anti-corruption reforms, Croat support rose 5.4 points, to 26.5% (Table VII in annex). The Bosniak sample continues to express the highest level of support for OHR-led reforms, even though it is down significantly on the last reporting period. Some 48.1% of the group support the political reforms (down 7.2 points), 44.1% the economic reforms (down 5.4 points), 36.6% anti-corruption reports (down 11 points), and 44.5% public administration reforms (down 9.3 points) (Table VII in annex). There was little change in attitudes towards the High Representative's authorities, compared to last quarter, and differences between the various ethnic groups remain very significant. Some 69.9% of the Serb sample continues to think the powers should be reduced, while 20% think they should stay the same, and just 2.8% think they should be increased. By contrast, the Bosniak group is inclined to think that the High Representative's powers should be increased (33.1%), with 29.7% of the opinion that they should not be changed, and 22.6% of the view they should be reduced. Croat opinion is somewhere in between, with 42.2% for reducing the High Representative's powers, 36.1% for leaving them as they are, and 16.2% for increasing them (Table IX).
Table IX In your view, should the High Representatives powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Reduced 13.9 23.3 22.6 29.0 40.2 42.2 Increased 49.2 25.9 33.1 32.6 15.5 16.2 Stay the same 24.2 33.8 29.7 22.7 39.8 36.1 DK/NA 12.7 17.0 14.5 15.7 4.5 5.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. 71.2 69.9 69.9 4.3 1.7 2.8 18.3 23.5 20.0 6.2 5.0 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

24

II III IV V VI VII VIII

Economic Stability Index recovers

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

After falling for three quarters in a row in 2007, the economic stability indices (chain and composite) experienced a sharp positive turnaround during the first quarter of 2008. In the second quarter, the composite index continued to rise, but the chain index remained more or less stable. We assume the sharp positive movement in the first quarter to be due to Bosnia and Herzegovina's formal progress towards closer relations with Europe and signing a Stabilisation and Association Agreement. This enthusiasm does not seem to have lasted into the following two quarters, which we may state have been marked by internal political problems and the 'birth' of the global financial crisis abroad, which would certainly have been major factors shaping our indicators. Overall, the Economic Stability Index has returned to approximately its average value for the past several years.

1. Industrial production up significantly

Industrial production in Bosnia and Herzegovina rose significantly in both entities during 2007 (compared to 2006). This same positive trend was evident during the first three quarters of 2008, with minor differences between the entities. Industrial production in the Federation was up 6.5% on the same period last year. In the Republika Srpska, the rate was a little higher at 8%. This is very similar to the situation during the second quarter. September did not represent an increase in production in the Republika Srpska compared to August, but did in the Federation where production was up 3%.
Table I Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices
VIII 2008 VIII 2008 VII 2008 VIII 2007 FBIH 98.2 109.6 RS 100.2 109.4 Source: Entity Statistics Offices, BiH I- VIII 2008 I- VIII 2007 105.4 107.8

The branches of industry which saw the greatest relative (that is percentage) increase in production in the Federation were the production of 25

EWS - Q3

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

other forms of transport, the production of chemicals and chemical products, and the production of medical, precise, and optical instruments and timepieces.1 The leading three sectors in the Republika Srpska were the production of other electrical machinery and equipment, the extraction of stone, black coal, lignite, and peat, and the production of motorised vehicles and trailers.2 As the values of the indices make clear (see footnote), some of these sectors experienced growth of more than 100% compared to last year. The sectors that saw the largest decline in the index of industrial production during the first nine months of 2008 (compared to the same period the year before) in the Federation were the extraction of other ores and stones, followed by furniture production, and in third place the production of office machinery and computers.3 This is the same set of sectors as in the previous report, which is a worrying indicator. In the Republika Srpska, the worst performing sectors were the production of radio, TV, and communications equipment, the production of office and computer equipment, and recycling.4 In previous reports, we noted that the radio, TV, and communications equipment sector had been one of the worst performing in the Republika Srpska, which is again the case, with production a mere 24% of what it was in the same period in 2007. If this index is anything to go by, this sector in the RS economy has clearly been experiencing very poor results for two years.

2. Unemployment down
The official data, which do not include the grey economy, have shown for some years a tendency for the number of unemployed individuals registered with the employment bureaux to rise. In 2007, there was a modest recovery, as unemployment began to fall in the latter three quarters of the year.
Table II Total number of registered unemployed by entity
Jan-05 328,225 144,823 473,048 Jan-06 349,137 142,754 491,891 Mar-06 351,867 145,331 497,198 Jan-07 367,449 146,180 513,629 Mar-07 371,156 146,517 517,673 Apr-07 370,961 144,306 515,267 Jun-07 370,410 140,189 510,599 Aug-07 369,886 136,520 506,406 Sep-07 371,342 134,197 505,539 Jan-08 367,449 136,108 503,557 Mar-08 357,281 138,497 495,778 Aug-08 340809 133.827 474636

FBiH RS BiH

Although the overall number of the officially unemployed is still very high, at around half a million, we take some modicum of comfort in the fact that it was some 40,000 less during the third quarter of 2008 than it had been in January, which is a reduction of 8%. A look at the educational background of the unemployed shows that the largest group are skilled and highly skilled workmen (173,664), followed by the unskilled (164,823) and people with school diplomas (109,867). The smallest group are those with university or other third level qualifications (19,810), who make up only 4% of the total. We also note that men and women are fairly equally represented amongst the unemployed, with a slight imbalance in favour of the former.5

3. Retail prices up significantly, as are Central Bank reserves

Retail prices rose 8% in both entities during the first nine months of 2008, compared to the same period the year before. Unlike previous years, we find that the retail price indices are somewhat
1 2 3 4 5 The values of their respective indices are: 231.4; 130.7; 124.3. Source: the Federal Statistics Office, Mjese~ni statisti~ki pregled broj 10, October 2008. The values of their respective indices are: 230.5; 163.3; 134.9. Source: the RS Statistics Office, Saop{tenje statistike industrije - Septembar 2008. godine, Broj XVI/10, October 2008. Source: the Federal Statistics Office, Mjese~ni statisti~ki pregled broj 10, October 2008. Source: the RS Statistics Office, Saop{tenje statistike industrije - Septembar 2008. godine, Broj XVI/10, October 2008. BiH Statistics Agency, Saop{tenje, Registrirana nezaposlenost za avgust 2008, Broj 8, Godina II, October 2008.

26

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

Table III Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices
First Quarter Second Quarter Retail price index III 2007 III 2007 I-III 2007 I-IV 2007 II 2007 III 2006 I-III 2006 I-IV 2006 FBiH 100 102 102 RS 100.3 100.8 100.2 100.4 Cost of living index III 2007 III 2007I-III 2007 I-IV 2007 II 2007 III 2006 I-III 2006 I-IV 2006 FBiH 99.9 101.3 101.2 RS 100.8 100.1 99.8 100 First Quarter Second Quarter Retail price index I 2008 I 2008 I 2008 VI 2008 VI 2008 I-IV 2008 XII 2007 I 2007 0 2005 V 2008 0 2007 I-IV 2007 FBiH 101.26 106.4 113.7 RS 101.5 105.8 113.3 100.9 107.8 107.2 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Third Quarter VIII 2007 VIII 2007 I-VIII 2007 VII 2007 VIII 2006 I-VIII 2006 100.4 101.6 101.6 100.3 101.6 100.8 VIII 2007 VIII 2007 I-VIII 2007 VII 2007 VIII 2006 I-VIII 2006 100.5 100.8 100.7 100.4 101.6 100.1 Third Quarter VIII 2007 VIII 2007 I-VIII 2007 VII 2007 VIII 2006 I-VIII 2006

EWS - Q3

Fourth Quarter XI 2007 XI 2007 I-XI 2007 X 2007 XI 2006 I-XI 2006 101.5 104.1 101.9 101.4 105.4 101.7 XI 2007 XI 2007 I-XI 2007 X 2007 XI 2006 I-XI 2006 101.8 103.7 101.2 101.9 106 101.5 Fourth Quarter VIII 2008 VIII 2008 I- VIII 2008 VII 2008 VIII 2007 I- VIII 2007 98.2 109.6 105.4 100.2 109.4 107.8

higher, indicating that prices rose significantly over the past year. For example, if we compare the retail price index from September 2008 with the average for 2005, we find that prices have risen around 17%, which is clearly a significant increase over a period of just three years. While we have had no case in recent years of double-digit inflation, the phenomenon of inflation on inflation, of which we have written in previous reports, does in fact produce significant increases in price in the medium-term, as has been the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A look at the structure of the retail price index shows that the main engines of retail price increases in the Federation were food and non-alcoholic beverages (14%), transport (13%), and restaurants and hotels (9%).6 The situation in the Republika Srpska is similar, the main motors Graph II: Central Bank of BiH Foreign Currency Reserves being communications (26%), transport (24%), food and non-alcoholic beverages (24%), and accommodation and utilities (23%).7 The high values associated with certain prices are concerning, particularly with regard to low-income individuals (e.g. pensioners) who spend most of their disposable income precisely on those categories and will therefore experience considerably greater inflation than the average. In recent years, central bank reserves have generally experienced significant growth. As the graph shows, this growth continued through 2008. By the end of September 2008, the reserves had reached a record level of 6.8 billion KM. The fact that the world is undergoing global financial crisis, however, and that its negative consequences are Source: Central Bank of BiH only beginning to be felt in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the form of higher interest rates, a credit squeeze, and the withdrawal of savings from banks mean that there will probably be a modest fall in the level of the foreign currency reserves in the near future. We do not expect any major disturbance, but it is difficult to see how under such circumstances the reserves can continue to grow, at least at the rate seen during the first three quarters of 2008.

6 7

Source: Federal Statistics Office, Mjese~ni statisti~ki pregled broj 10, October 2008. Source: Republika Srpska Statistics Office, Saop{tenje statistike cijena juli 2008, Broj III/9, September 2008.

27

EWS - Q3

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

4. Trade deficit at alarming level

The high trade deficit which has been a constant phenomenon in recent years was reduced somewhat in 2006, largely as a short term consequence of the introduction of value-added tax. In 2000, however, it began to rise again at an even greater rate than previously. The main reason for the growing deficit is that imports are growing faster than exports. During 2007, at 7.5 billion KM, the trade deficit was 1.5 billion KM greater than the 5.9 billion deficit for 2006.8 In other words, after a modTable V erate improvement in the balance of trade after Balance of Trade of BIH the introduction of VAT, the country quickly found itself facing a rising deficit again, as the importVIII 2008 I VIII 2008 I VIII 2008 export ratio fell. The situation has not improved in I VIII 2007 2008, as may be seen from Table V. Exports 547 4531 + 16,7 % When we look at the balance of trade during the first nine months of 2008, we find that the deficit Balance -836 -6330 was 7.2 billion KM. This is an increase of 2.5 billion Ratio 39.55 41.71 on June. While the total volume of trade has grown, Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priopenje statistike vanjske trgovine we also find that imports have grown faster (22 %) then exports (17%), which is the root cause of the deficit and naturally affects the import-export ratio. Thus, during the first nine months of 2008 the importexport ratio was not quite 42%, down from 50% (during the first quarter). Overall, it is to be expected that the trade deficit will exceed last year's, continuing the negative trend towards an increase in the absolute deficit.9 This is certainly not a good indicator, particularly under circumstances of global financial crisis, when it will become increasingly difficult to access resources to finance the deficit.
Imports Volume 1383 1930 10861 15392 + 21,8 %

Exports were highest in the manufacturing sector. Looked at in economic terms, both exports and imports were highest of intermediate goods (i.e. raw materials and semi-finished goods) and of capital goods.10 Bosnia and Herzegovina's most important foreign trading partner is the European Union, accounting for more than 50% of total trade, or rather, 47% of imports and 55% of exports. The individual countries with whom Bosnia and Herzegovina does most trade are Croatia, followed by Germany and Italy, as was the case in 2007.11

5. Public still pessimistic about the economic situation

Most of our sample is of the opinion that there have been no major changes in the economic situation during the past year. As was the case last quarter, approximately one third described the economic situation as having deteriorated, while just 16% described it as improved. A look at the trend for the past few quarters suggests that the public mood has become fairly static, with no major oscillations on a quarterly basis and with a modest tendency to improve. In any case, assessment of the economic situation in the near future is such that we can certainly say public expectations have not been met and only a small percentage continues to expect positive economic change in the country. The sample from the Federation is most pessimistic, with 29% describing the economic situation as having deteriorated. In the Republika Srpska and Br~ko district, a similarly high percentage, or around 22%, share that opinion. When we look in terms of ethnic minority areas, we find that Bosniak majority areas are the most pessimistic, followed by Serb majority areas, with relatively the best results in Croat majority areas.12
8 9 10 11 12

Source: Foreign Trade Chamber of BiH, Pregled i analiza ostvarene vanjskotrgovinske razmjene za BiH za januar 2008. godine, accessed on the Chamber's website in March 2008. Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priop}enje statistike vanjske trgovine, Broj 8, Godina IV, September 2008. Source: Ibid Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priop}enje statistike vanjske trgovine, Broj 8, Godina IV, September 2008. Source: Table VIII in annex

28

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

Graph 3: Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how?

EWS - Q3

Graph 5: How do you expect your family finances to change over the next year?

There are few signs of optimism in public opinion regarding the economic situation over the coming year. As is normally the case, most of the sample expects no change. On the other hand, some 16% expect the economic situation to deteriorate, while 17% expect improvement. In any case, on average, it seems that the public expects next year to bring more of the same, economically speaking. As is clear from the first section, statistical indicators suggest a moderate growth in retail prices compared to last year. For sure, the September poll reveals a considerable level of public concern over potential price and cost of living increases. Consequently, more than 70% of the sample expects prices to continue to rise, which is only a little less than in the previous four quarters.13 We have already mentioned that prices rose most during the reporting period with regard to food and agricultural produce, to which the public is no doubt particularly sensitive. Consequently, expectations of continued price rises are no doubt under the influence of the recent past. Moreover, trends on international markets do suggest that retail prices may in fact continue to rise, which may be affecting our sample's predictions. We have seen that most of the sample said they expect prices to rise in the coming year. At the same time, a high percentage (58%) do not expect their household income to increase.14 Just 13% said

13 14

Source: Table X in annex Source: Table XI in annex.

29

EWS - Q3
Table XI Expect household income over the next six months to...?
Sep 2006 Dec 2006 April 2007 Bosnia and Herzegovina % % % Fall significantly 4.9 3.1 1.8 Fall modestly 9.5 10.3 8.7 Rise modestly 15.8 19.8 18.1 Fall modestly 2.5 1.7 3.9 No change 59.7 59.2 55.6 DK/NA 7.5 6.0 12.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total fall 14.4 13.3 10.4 Total rise 18.3 21.5 22.0 No change 59.7 59.2 55.6 DK/NA 7.5 6.0 12.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Sep 2007 % 2.3 9.7 19.5 4.3 54.0 10.3 100.0 12.0 23.8 54.0 10.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 % 7.1 9.8 15.1 2.8 58.0 7.3 100.0 16.9 17.9 58.0 7.3 100.0

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

Mar. 2008 % 6.2 6.2 17.6 3.8 60.0 6.2 100.0 12.4 21.4 60.0 6.2 100.0

Jun. 2008 % 3.8 7.3 15.0 3.5 63.0 7.3 100.0 11.1 18.5 63.0 7.3 100.0

Sept. 2008 % 4.0 9.2 19.1 3.7 58.0 6.0 100.0 13.2 22.8 58.0 6.0 100.0

they expect income to increase. This implies that any further increase in prices would have the effect of reducing the standard of living of most people. While this only represents the views of our sample, such views are clearly worrying, particularly with regard to low-income groups. Finally, given our above analysis, we can hardly be surprised that more than 85% of the sample said they do not expect to be able to save any of their income the highest level to date.15 These indicators only provide further confirmation of the great dependence of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian economy on foreign savings, which is certainly not a good indicator, particularly at a time when it is likely to become more difficult to access foreign capital, due to the impact of the global financial crisis.

6. Institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina cost too much in both time and money
According to institutional economics, a country's economic performance is largely determined by the costliness and efficiency of its domestic institutions. When institutions cost more than they should and are insufficiently efficient, this may be one factor in that countrys economic backwardTable XIII How much does the current institutional framework in BiH (how public administration is organized and functions) affect your activities with regard to ...? (%)
BiH I 2008 Jun. 08 Sept. '08 FBiH I 2008 Jun. 08Sept. '08 46.6 25.8 27.5 100.0 46.2 25.9 27.9 50.8 28.4 20.7 100.0 47.9 30.8 21.3 RS I 2008 Jun. 08Sept. '08 54.1 21.5 24.4 100.0 53.3 22.0 24.7 67.3 46.6 16.2 30.9 16.5 22.5 100.0 100.0 64.9 16.6 18.5 44.0 32.9 23.0 D Brcko I 2008Jun. 08Sept. '08 37.8 51.5 10.7 100.0 24.7 91.2 37.5 8.8 37.8 100.0 100.0 91.4 8.6

Money More than it should 51.9 54.4 50.0 51.0 Less than it might 22.6 22.3 29.0 22.4 DK 25.4 23.4 21.0 26.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Time More than it should 50.2 53.2 47.3 49.0 Less than it might 23.1 22.5 31.2 22.4 DK 26.6 24.3 21.6 28.6 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research

25.7 27.3 63.5 37.5 10.7 35.2

15

Source: Table XII in annex.

30

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

EWS - Q3

ness relative to other national economies that do not suffer in the same way. It causes an increase in the overall costs of doing business and life in general and results in less competitive domestic industry and a lower standard of living. It seems clear that the importance of institutions for the economic progress of national economies under modern conditions is no longer disputed. This area is of particular interest for Bosnia and Herzegovina, where there has been considerable discussion of institutional issues in recent times. There is consequently sufficient reason for us to monitor issues relating to the institutional aspects of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian economy and society. According to our September poll, the way in which government bureaucracy is organised and functions costs ordinary people considerably more than it should, both in terms of direct charges and in terms of the time spent dealing with local institutions. In several recent reports, we have noted any increase in the percentage of the sample that thinks so. Some 50% said they thought institutions cost more than they should, while 47% said they take more time than they should. We note that the worst results came from Br~ko district, though one should keep in mind that the sample in the district is rather small and any results from there should be treated with a certain degree of caution. In any case, there is considerable support for the view that institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina cost too much

Table XIV How good do you think the following institutions are at their job?

III 2008 %

VI 08 %

IX '08 %

III 2008 %

VI 08 % 52,7 23,7 23,6 42,9 34,5 22,7 39,0 38,1 22,9 35,6 43,8 20,6 40,3 34,0 25,7 37,1 36,8 26,1 26,1 50,1 23,8 22,1 59,2 18,7

IX '08 % 50,8 25,6 23,7 33,8 42,3 24,0 30,6 47,4 22,0 27,0 53,5 19,5 29,5 43,2 27,3 29,3 40,5 30,1 20,6 59,3 20,1 14,1 68,2 17,6

III 2008 % 44,3 28,5 27,2 41,6 36,1 22,2 42,4 36,7 20,9 36,7 46,0 17,3 32,5 34,7 32,7 34,6 31,1 34,2 31,4 52,6 16,0 25,5 61,8 12,6

VI 08 % 40,4 29,1 30,5 35,7 37,0 27,2 33,5 41,0 25,5 30,5 47,2 22,2 38,0 27,4 34,6 34,6 26,1 39,4 17,7 57,5 24,8 14,6 67,6 17,8

IX '08 % 48,6 27,6 23,8 48,2 32,4 19,4 47,2 33,6 19,2 40,6 44,1 15,4 40,6 36,2 23,2 35,9 35,7 28,4 25,1 56,9 18,0 22,6 63,7 13,7

III 2008 % 90,3 9,7

VI 08 % 53,5 41,6 4,8 32,0 63,1 4,8 41,7 55,9 2,4 49,4 48,2 2,4 36,6 60,5 2,9 37,7 56,8 5,5 30,7 62,0 7,3 16,0 81,6 2,4

IX '08 % 73,2 24,1 2,7 37,1 60,1 2,7 33,9 64,1 2,1 27,6 72,4

Central Bank of BiH Good 48,2 47,8 50,4 49,2 Bad 25,1 26,2 26,3 23,3 DK 26,7 25,9 23,2 27,4 Indirect Taxation Authority Good 39,4 39,8 39,6 36,5 Bad 35,6 36,1 38,7 35,9 DK 25,0 24,1 21,7 27,6 Entity Tax Administrations Bad 37,7 36,9 37,3 33,8 DK 39,4 39,6 42,3 41,0 Good 23,0 23,5 20,4 25,2 Judicial System DK 32,5 33,9 32,4 28,5 Good 47,5 45,2 50,2 48,9 Bad 20,0 20,9 17,4 22,5 Directorate for European Integration Good 33,0 39,3 33,7 32,1 Bad 36,2 32,0 41,2 37,3 DK 30,8 28,7 25,1 30,5 Foreign Investment Promotion Agency Bad 33,8 36,1 31,9 31,8 DK 33,7 32,9 39,3 35,7 Good 32,5 30,9 28,8 32,5 Privatisation Agency DK 26,9 22,9 22,2 22,1 Good 52,8 53,3 59,0 54,1 Bad 20,4 23,9 18,9 23,9 Employment Bureaux Good 20,2 19,0 17,4 17,0 Bad 64,0 63,0 66,9 64,6 DK 15,7 18,0 15,7 18,4 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

77,2 17,9 4,9 55,3 44,7

64,7 35,3

66,2 32,9 0,8 74,1 25,1 0,8 74,7 19,7 5,6 10,1 89,1 0,8

20,3 79,7

27,2 72,2 0,5 11,1 88,9

10,4 89,6

31

EWS - Q3

ECONOMIC STABILITY IN BIH

in both time and money. Or to put it more simply, institutions here are not just expensive; they are also time-consuming. Their efficiency is in question. Asked to rank direct and indirect institutional costs on a scale, our sample seemed to suggest that the indirect costs are higher than the direct cash charges. On average, some 30% of our sample said that their costs where some 10-30% higher because of direct charges.16 On the other hand, more than 30% said that their budgetary spending was at least 10-30% higher because of indirect costs due to institutions, which is to say as a result of those institutions failure to act, or the length of time required for procedures, or the insecurity the institutions create, etc.17 In other words, these answers imply that the public is not satisfied with the degree of efficiency of domestic institutions, as aside from direct costs, like tax, they also face higher indirect costs, due to institutional failure, particularly as a result of poor implementation in the field. We note that the results for the Federation are worse than those for the Republika Srpska. Given the fact that institutions are important to economic growth and development may be more or less efficient, we ask the sample to rate the performance of important institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The institutions rated best are the Central Bank, the indirect taxation authority, and the entity tax administrations. The worst ranking are the privatisation agencies, the employment bureaux, and the legal systema list which has been stable for some time now.18 These results should certainly concern the institutions in question, at least as assessment of their performance. For more details see table XIV in the annex. Finally, inefficient and ineffective formal institutions act as a motive for both individuals and industry to invest in so-called informal institutions, in order to ensure that matters which should be the responsibility of government are actually done. By informal institutions we mean the use of relationships, whether with friends, family, or colleagues, to ensure that a job is completed more quickly or more easily. Our September poll suggests considerable use of such connections by the public (around 20% said they do use them).19

16 17 18 19

Source: Table XVI in annex Source: Table XVII in annex Source: Table XIV in annex Source: Table XV in annex

32

II III IV V VI VII VIII

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT IN BIH

1. Business opinion poll results suggest economic situation deteriorating
According to the results of our business sector opinion poll for the third quarter of 2008, the sample is inclined to describe the economic situation as having deteriorated compared to a year ago. The following graph illustrates that more than 50% said that the economic situation had got worse, while a little more than 10% said it was better than last year. While these results are hardly optimistic, neither has there been a particular negative turn; the results are practically identical with those from the previous quarter. We may also note that the worst results in the recent past were those for December 2007.
Graph I: Compared to twelve months ago, the economic situation in BiH now is ?

Private sector expectations regarding the economy over the next six months are somewhat better than the assessment of the preceding period, as is often the case with our survey. It is, however, difficult to talk of any real optimism, given that more than 50% still think that the economic situation will not change (and we have seen that they describe current circumstances as bad).1 Only 11%

Source: Table II in annex.

33

EWS - Q3

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

expect the economy to improve. Overall, there is little to be surprised at in these answers, given that the Bosnian economy has over the past number of years not experienced any particularly expansionary economic trends, while the world economy may freely be described as having deteriorated. In our view, the condition of the world economy is an important factor influencing the projections of our sample from the domestic business sector.

2. Industrial capacity in Bosnia and Herzegovina significantly underutilised

The degree to which industrial capacity is actually being used in Bosnia and Herzegovina is an important indicator of the condition both of the business sector itself and of the economy more generally. The level of exploitation of current capacity indirectly suggests what total production in the country might be if all existing capacity were employed. Unfortunately, the survey suggests that we are still some considerable distance from what one might consider a realistic level of production.
Graph II: In your opinion, the economic situation in BiH in six months time will be?

The results of our 2006 and 2007 surveys were worrying because such a high percentage of the business sector sample said they were not making full use of their capacity. The results from December 2007 were particularly worrying, as more than 50% of the companies surveyed said they were not making full use of capacity. In the surveys for the first three quarters of 2008, we note a modest improvement from quarter to quarter. Nonetheless, some 40% still said they have idle capacity, while 56% reported that they were operating at full capacity. A look at the entity data suggests that the situation is rather worse for companies in the Republika Srpska, which has been the case now for four quarters or a full year.2 On the basis of our survey results, it would seem that the business sector in the Federation is making better use of its capacity than their fellows in the Republika Srpska. Naturally, the very high percentage of companies in the sample who have idle capacity it is not just a problem for those companies, but indirectly a macro economic problem for the country, as we have pointed out in earlier reports. From the survey, we cannot tell what the reason for such a high percentage of the sample reporting idle capacity may be, but it is certain that the indicator is not a positive one for the Bosnian economy. Unfortunately, while the Bosnian economy continues to record high trade deficits, local companies continue to dispose of idle capacity, including a signifi2 For more detail, see Table III in annex .

34

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

EWS - Q3

cant unemployed workforce. This is also an indicator that, with relatively little problem and appropriate policy, it would be possible to reactivate the unemployed capacity, thus increasing the total national product and indirectly providing a better standard of living.

3. Financial indicators deteriorating

The results of our last seven quarterly surveys suggested that most companies were finding themselves in a better financial position compared to the year before. The results of the second quarter of 2008, however, revealed a certain deterioration with regard to this economic indicator. The thirdquarter results are worse again, even though most of the sample still record that the financial performance of the companies has not significantly changed. Thus, according to our July business survey, one third of the companies surveyed reported that they were in a better financial position than they had been the year before, while the September survey brought even less favourable results. Only once before have we recorded such a low percentage of the sample responding in this fashion, in March 2006. The most common answer (offered by 46% of the sample) was that their financial indicators had not changed over the past year, while 26% said they had deteriorated. In other words, after the relatively favourable assessments recorded in 2007, it would appear that companies once again have reason to complain of their financial performance. Projections for the coming six months were a little better, with 31% suggesting that a financial improvement might be on the cards. There was little real difference between the entities, though the sample from the Federation was a little more optimistic.3 Overall, the responses to this question were less positive than the response to the second quarterly survey.
Table IV With regard to your companys overall operations, how would you characterize your financial status compared to the same period last year? (%)
Better June 2005 Sep. 2005 Dec. 2005 March 2006 June 2006 Sep. 2006 Dec. 2006 April 2007 Sep. 2007 Dec. 2007 March 2008 Aug. 2008 23 20 31 19 35 36 38 43 62 46 50 35 The same 43 49 39 43 34 38 36 36 24 34 32 41 Worse 34 31 29 38 28 26 26 21 14 20 17 24

Sep. 2008 28 46 26 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

The answers to our questions on the level of debt companies owe, compared to the same period the year before, suggest that levels have risen in 34% of companies. The percentage is higher in the Republika Srpska, at 41%. Moreover, 42% of companies at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina said there had been no change in the level of debt, while 24% said it had decreased. In short, the results for this question are less favourable than for the past two surveys. Looked at by entity, the answers were a little worse in the Republika Srpska, which is a reversal of the situation last quarter.4 It is, of course, difficult to make an objective judgement in this case, as an increase in debt may simply be a consequence of investment, which we cannot tell from our questionnaire. Moreover, with regard to future debt, we can expect a reduction in the short to medium term, given the current increase in interest rates as a result of the global financial crisis. It is a general economic principle that higher interest rates, which mean an increase in the price of borrowed money, lead indirectly to an increase in the cost of investment, which ultimately results in less investment. Finally, 63% of the sample said they had made a profit, while 26% said they had operated at a loss during the previous six months. If we compare these results to those for 2005, we find that the overall increase in the number of companies making a profit has been reversed during the past two quarters.5 In recent reports, somewhere around 80% of the sample reported operating at a profit. The result of the third quarter of 2008 is the lowest to date.
3 4 5 Source: Table V in annex. Source: Table VI in annex. Source: Table VII in annex.

35

EWS - Q3

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

4. Inefficient institutions, unfair competition, and high taxes are major burdens to business
Asked to what degree the various levels of government help business to overcome the various obstacles that face it, our sample have for a number of quarters now provided discouraging answers. Looked at overall, the municipal level received the worst rating in the September poll, for the first time. In previous reports, business opinion had generally been that higher levels of government were less effective. It is difficult to know the reason for this change, but one factor may be the local elections and that the respondents may have been more aware than previously of the performance of this level of government, of the councils, and of the candidates for council office, etc. They were no doubt expressing their dissatisfaction with the performance of the lowest level of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The other levels of government did not fare much better, however, and, regardless of whether we are talking about canton, entity, or state, the results are nearly identical. Overall, more than 40% of the sample characterised government in Bosnia and Herzegovina as of little help to the private sector, regardless of level.
Table VIII To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH:
Very helpful Generally helpful Neither helpful nor unhelpful III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 Generally unhelpful Not at all helpful Cannot judge N.A.

State 1 1 1 10 7 11 26 25 29 17 19 Entity 2 1 2 8 12 16 19 22 26 17 26 Canton 2 1 1 10 9 22 28 21 19 14 20 Municipality 3 1 3 14 16 16 28 20 20 10 14 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

22 21 22 23

28 29 28 29

32 24 26 30

19 19 19 23

3 2 2 3

5 6 5 4

13 14 18 15

13 13 21 16

In an attempt to identify the key obstacles to company operations, we have asked a number of related questions in our recent surveys. Most of these questions relate indirectly to the samples view of the effectiveness of institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the answers acting as an indicator of the quality of the institutional framework in the country and the services which institutions offer the business sector, whether directly or indirectly. The following table provides an overview of the rankings of the various obstacles to business.
Table IX To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations:
Very III '08VIII '8 IX '08 Customs procedures High taxes Unfair competition Corruption The performance of the courts Political instability Labour market regulation Tax administration Procedures for issuing work permits Environmental regulations Safety regulations and standards Lack of qualified staff 23 52 19 50 21 39 34 37 43 26 24 20 36 17 11 17 Somewhat III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 23 19 24 21 20 27 23 27 30 25 29 25 33 24 29 16 21 32 27 32 30 28 20 24 46 33 26 25 22 39 31 34 29 35 28 34 Little III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 23 12 15 13 15 10 25 19 8 21 21 16 13 10 9 9 11 10 27 20 9 21 32 20 17 17 25 20 20 23 27 29 20 30 36 25 Not at all III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 20 11 9 9 7 10 23 20 15 21 22 25 13 6 4 4 7 8 14 10 9 16 16 16 12 6 7 5 5 3 11 9 7 9 13 16 N.A. III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 10 6 7 21 14 10 7 8 11 11 12 15 21 10 10 26 14 14 18 14 13 19 17 21

46 48 36 46 45 47

44 36 21 25 37 21 16 18 14 23 39 17 16 19

Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

In most of our previously business sector opinion polls, the sample have identified unfair competition, political instability, and the performance of the courts as the main obstacles to business. 36

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

EWS - Q3

The answers to our September poll were somewhat different in so far as it identified the courts as the main obstacle, followed by high corporate taxes, then corruption, and in fourth place unfair competition. It is worth noting how regularly the business sector singles out the courts as an obstacle to business, while at the same time there is relatively little progress being made in the area, which, while not directly connected with economic activity, nonetheless so significantly hinders business progress in the country. The general conclusions of our September survey suggest that most of the problems cited as major obstacles to business relate to the performance of institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is to say the problem of ineffective institutions (principally related to the problems of unfair competition, the performance of the courts, and corruption). Our business sector sample ranked the following items on the list offered to them as least problematic for business: environmental regulations, safety regulations and standards, and the lack of trained staff. It is worth noting that in our surveys for the past two quarters the lack of trained or educated personnel ranked as the least problematic of the various obstacles. This suggests that the business sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina does not think it has major problems accessing appropriate human capital. If we link this answer with the fact of underutilised capacity in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then the fact that there is no lack of human capital and there is capacity to put it to work suggests that the problem may lie with physical capital, or rather a lack of investment required to put domestic capacity to work.

5. Direct and indirect costs caused by local institutions remain high

As is now clear from the result of our business sector opinion poll, institutions condition the operations of domestic companies, we have for a year been monitoring the efficiency of the relevant institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Our purpose in identifying the key economic and non-market institutions of relevance for company operations, and so for economic growth, is to identify which ones are doing a good or bad job at carrying out the functions which are their reason for existing. The following table presents the results for the last three quarterly reports.
Table X How well do the following institutions do their joy
Very well Fairly well IV' 07 IX IX '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 Central Bank of BiH 34 45 24 34 37 43 Indirect Tax Authority 23 28 15 54 49 47 Entity Tax Administrations 14 20 11 49 47 46 The Judicial System 5 7 4 37 29 18 European Integration Directorate 3 5 7 33 28 22 FIPA 2 7 4 31 20 29 Privatisation Agency 7 8 1 29 24 20 Banking Agency 10 13 7 41 39 28 Employment Bureaus 2 11 3 43 30 31 Foreign-Trade Chamber 2 14 7 44 37 28 Entity Chambers of Commerce 5 13 9 46 35 28 Social Funds 2 7 20 26 16 9 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Fairly poorly IV' 07 IX IX '08 IV' 07 3 3 7 3 10 8 23 5 16 13 25 7 13 22 39 34 8 9 26 8 8 11 18 18 14 21 28 23 7 7 29 6 15 14 34 14 13 13 32 10 17 18 31 10 11 7 33 8 Very poorly N.A. IX '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 6 24 14 20 8 8 10 7 13 14 13 5 30 11 9 9 11 47 49 34 20 40 43 29 25 28 26 26 8 36 34 28 16 26 26 16 20 31 22 13 20 22 22 12 33 52 51 23

IX 0 5 7 33 9 18 22 7 20 14 12 19

In assessing the institutions which economic theory and practice consider relevant to the business sector and economic growth, the companies ranked the following as the least effective: the legal system, the pensions and disability insurance funds, the privatisation agencies, and the employment bureaux. This is much the same list as for the past four quarters, which represents a fairly clear message as to where progress is needed as a priority. We note that the legal system received the lowest ranking in the September poll and recall that the business sector also identified the inadequate operation of the courts as a major barrier to the conduct of business. Moreover, we note that more than 40% 37

EWS - Q3

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

of companies surveyed in the September poll are of the opinion that the legal system cannot be trusted to protect their property or contractual rights in commercial cases.6 As in earlier reports, we would like to the draw attention to this major indirect problem for the business sector and deliver the message we regularly receive from the business sector to decision-makers. On the other hand, the most efficient institutions were the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Indirect Taxation Authority, and the Entity Tax Administrations. In nearly all our surveys to date, it is the institutions responsible for fiscal monetary policy that have received the best ratings. In previous reports, we discussed in more detail how inefficient institutions lead in practice to the phenomenon of companies and the public becoming oriented towards the creation of informal institutions, essentially with a view to making their business easier. The results of the last three surveys indicate that informal institutions are in widespread use in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Informal connections and contacts are used to some degree or other by more than 70% of companies, which is up on earlier surveys.7 As many as 80% of the business sector survey said they use various informal or unwritten rules in their business, which is the highest result to date, and which is related to the use of informal institutions and low levels of effectiveness on the part of formal ones.8 To sum up, the considerable majority of our business sector sample use alternative informal institutions in their day-to-day business, to some degree or other, and there would appear to have been a modest but real increase in the percentage who have done so over the past year. Finally, we may consider the efficiency of the institutional framework indirectly through the costs which institutions impose on the private sector. These costs are known as transaction costs and include both direct monetary costs and indirect costs that take the form of, for example, time spent on various institutional procedures, activities, and processes. According to the third quarterly poll, more than half of the sample (about 70%) is of the opinion that transaction costs are higher than they should be, both in monetary terms and in terms of the amount of time required for various procedures.9 The competitiveness of companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina is reduced by these high transaction costs, which are a consequence both of the existing structures and the degree of efficiency of the institutional framework. Moreover, we have tried to find out from our sample how much greater their operational costs are as a result of the direct and indirect transaction costs imposed.10 Most of the sample (51%) said that direct monetary payment to institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina increased their costs by the order of 5% to 20%. Nor is there any reason for surprise that costs appear to be higher in the Federation (55%) than in the Republika Srpska (41%). On the other hand, a sample also suggested a high level of indirect cost, with approximately 53% of the total sample saying that also inflated their costs to the tune of anything from 5 to 20%, though in this case the Federation sample were far more likely to be of this opinion (60%) than the sample from the Republika Srpska (28%). Generally speaking, the answers suggest that operating costs are noticeably higher in Bosnia as a result of both direct and indirect costs imposed by government institutions and that the situation is rather worse for companies in the Federation than for those in the Republika Srpska.

6. What are the consequences of the global financial crisis for the Bosnian economy?
The third-quarter report is somewhat special, insofar as it has been written under conditions of global financial crisis, which transferred almost overnight in September from the United States to Great Britain and began to spread throughout Western Europe from there. Because of the serious nature of the crisis,11 and against the logic of the functioning of market economies, the first state interventions to
6 7 8 9 10 11 Source: Table XVIII in annex . Source: Table XI in annex. Source: Table XII in annex. Source: Tables XIII and XIV in annex. Source: Tables XV and XVI in annex. The seriousness of the crisis, which began as a mortgage crisis that brought down the US housing market, is clear from the fact recently published by the London based Economist magazine of a house in Detroit sold for a single dollar.

38

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

EWS - Q3

save the financial systems of the various national economies in prices soon followed (for example, the Bush administration plan in the United States to provide $700 billion to rescue the financial system there, or the British Prime Minister, Gordon Browns plans for an initial injection of $87 billion into the British banking system, along with other measures, and the co-ordinated reduction of interest rates by the central banks of the US, Great Britain, the European Central bank, and even China, etc.). What recent reports tell us is that the financial crisis is still not behind us, that we should expect interest rates to rise and tighter loan conditions, and that it may take decades to restore the confidence lost in the financial system. The question of concern to us is, however, what the potential consequences of the global world financial crisis for the Bosnian economy may be. Economic analysts predict that the financial crisis will have relatively smaller consequences for economies with underdeveloped financial systems. The consequences for developed economies will be much greater, not merely with regard to issues of a financial nature, but also in terms of the final impact on the real economy. For example, some 159,000 people lost their jobs in the United States in September alone, while certain industries, including the car industry, are in major crisis, primarily as a result of the tightening of conditions for approving personal loans. It is projected that world economic growth will fall 3% this year, which might be termed a recession.12 For now, we may say that the real economy in Bosnia has not suffered any such blows, the financial sector (i.e. the banking system) still seems stable, but that the first blows of the financial tsunami have begun to be felt even in this small transition economy. An economy entirely dependent upon the import of Western European capital, which is now itself at risk, will suffer to the same degree as Western European capital itself. Just as we import the Euros inflation thanks to our peg to the Euro, so a fixed linkage to financial infusions from Western Europe means indirectly importing the consequences of the global financial crisis. These consequences will naturally become apparent primarily in the level of interest rates, i.e. the price of capital, and indirectly through loan-making conditions. This involves, however, a whole chain of economic effects; a reduction in loan making, less consumption, particularly forms of consumption that rely on credit, and actors in the private sector whose final product or production processes are financed by loans will be affected to a greater or lesser degree. It is difficult to predict the impact in quantitative terms, but we assume that there will be no major disasters, while also assuming that the Bosnian economy will find it increasingly difficult to attain any further increase in GDP under such circumstances, never mind generate the urgently needed job opportunities for the approximately 500,000 unemployed workers. Overall, the financial crisis is certainly not welcome, but there is room for hope that the Bosnian economy will navigate this difficult period with minimal losses.

12

The Economist, London, Volume 389, Number 8601, October 11th-17th, p. 13.

39

II III IV V VI VII VIII

The Social Stability Index up

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

The Social Stability Index rose during the third quarter of 2008. Its value in September 2008 was 46 index points, up one point on June. For the quarter by quarter trend see the graph. It should be stressed that the Social Stability Index continues to be lower than the other indices, reflecting the serious problems in the sector. Given the low salaries in certain branches, the correspondingly low pensions, the lack of appropriate social protection systems, and the considerable exposure to rising living costs, the situation in this domain is as might be expected. The difficulty of the situation and the need for increased focus are confirmed by recent initiatives of the World Bank to find appropriate ways, in cooperation with the entity governments, to target beneficiaries and pay social benefits. During the third quarter, there was a reduction in the number of households reporting low income (less than 500 KM per month) in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but an increase in the Republika Srpska and in Br~ko district. This is particularly evident in rural areas, which is surprising given that this population has in previous years enjoyed significant seasonal income from agriculture. The reporting period overlapped with the election campaign for local government, which gave a certain boost to public expectations regarding the economy, cash income, and expected price levels, as well as to willingness to support public expressions of dissatisfaction. There were no changes with regard to purchasing power and living standards, as the average salary (July salary compared to May 2008) rose just 1.55% in the Federation and 0.92% in the Republika Srpska. At the same time, food became cheaper, but accommodation and fuel prices rose. While the average salaries are converging at the level of the entities, there is a worrying gap appearing between regions and municipalities within the country. It is noticeable that salaries are rising fastest in areas where there is a relative concentration of bureaucracy and public employment (government and public institutions). There has, meanwhile, been practically no increase in private-sector salaries. Increased salaries are the basic motor for increasing the average pension under current 41

EWS - Q3 legislation determining the availability of resources from contributions (social insurance payments). A look at the average pensions for August, in comparison to those for May 2008, suggests that they rose in both entities proportional to the increase in average salaries, which was 2.19% in the Federation and 0.12% in the Republika Srpska (see following graph).

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

Data on pensions, RS and FBiH, January '08 and August '08

1. Household income falling in the RS and in rural areas

Comparing our September poll results and the results for June, we find that there has been no major change in the distribution of monthly household income in either entity or Br~ko district (see Table I in annex). This is in line with the entity statistics office data, which showed an increase in the July salary, compared to May, of just 1.55% in the Federation and 0.92% in the Republika Srpska. Moreover, average pensions in August 2008 were up just 2.19% in the Federation and 0.12% in the Republika Srpska, compared to May 2008. For more on this, see the section on purchasing power and living standards. According to our September poll (table I in the annex), low-income households (monthly income below 500 KM) continue to make up more than half the country level sample. The percentage went down from 48.2% to 47.1% in the Federation, comparing September to June, but it rose from 48.3% to 59.4% in the Republika Srpska and from 66.9% to 86.9% in Br~ko district. The general pattern of the distribution of income by entity and Br~ko district is similar to the distribution of income by other population categories. In what our methodology classifies as ethnic
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 Quarter No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 Subtotal to 500 Bosniak majority areas Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 2,7 0,7 1,6 3,9 1,3 8,3 1,3 2,0 9,6 19,0 17,2 9,2 17,3 18,8 9,8 14,0 12,2 41,3 55,5 52,3 Croat majority areas Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 0,5 2,1 3,9 2,1 0,1 6,0 0,7 2,8 5,6 8,6 8,8 6,0 5,8 5,1 4,0 5,2 10,1 25,9 22,4 29,1 Minority sample in CMA Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 0,5 1,0 0,9 1,8 5,0 1,8 1,9 4,2 22,5 11,4 5,6 27,2 10,8 6,0 10,3 14,4 22,1 63,5 39,3 Serb majority areas Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 4,3 0,8 5,2 7,6 5,6 9,8 5,6 6,7 9,3 12,6 15,4 9,9 9,8 17,7 9,9 11,4 13,2 48,3 47,0 59,4 Minority sample in SMA Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 10,1 0,9 9,6 9,0 5,2 7,7 11,1 11,8 23,2 27,3 25,9 8,2 8,7 16,8 8,5 4,6 9,5 67,3 60,7 70,1

Income in KM Minority sample in BMA Quarter Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. No income 3,7 2,0 < 100 6,9 1,4 2,0 101 - 200 17,6 0,6 2,0 201 - 300 6,8 21,3 15,4 301 - 400 9,7 24,5 24,5 401 - 500 11,4 9,0 10,6 Subtotal to 500 56,2 56,9 56,5 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

42

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

EWS - Q3

majority areas, our poll shows that low-income households increased in number between June and September in Serb majority areas, up from 47% to 59.4%, and in Croat majority areas, up from 22.4% to 29.1%. At the same time, the percentage of low income households in Bosniak majority areas fell from 55.5% to 52.3%. These trends do not hold for the minority sample, however. There was, consequently, no change in the number of low income minority households in Bosniak majority areas, though there was an increase in Serb majority areas and a significant decrease in Croat majority areas (see table II below). According to the poll, there was a minor reduction in the number of low-income households in urban areas (from 42.7% to 42.1%), with a significant increase in rural areas (from 52.1% to 60.9%). This increase in the number of low-income rural households is particularly worrying, as in previous years it is precisely during this period that their incomes have significantly grown as a result of income from agriculture. Moreover, the number of low-income households is up for both genders and all age groups, except 18 to 35-year-olds (see table III below).
Table III Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)
BiH Income in KM No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 SUBTOTAL TO 500 1,8 2,2 13,4 12,5 12,8 42,7 Urban 0,1 1,5 3,0 10,9 14,7 12,0 42,1 8,1 3,6 16,7 12,7 10,9 52,1 Rural 1,7 4,2 5,2 19,6 18,0 12,3 60,9 6,1 2,2 12,2 15,7 11,3 47,5 Male 1,6 1,9 4,2 16,5 16,1 11,5 51,9 4,8 3,8 18,2 9,7 12,2 48,7 Female 0,4 4,0 4,3 15,2 17,1 12,8 53,8 4,1 0,6 4,5 11,1 12,3 32,6 18-35 0,1 1,1 1,4 5,8 9,8 13,5 31,7 3,4 2,3 7,9 6,6 15,6 35,8 2,0 3,4 7,6 17,6 14,8 45,4 7,6 5,4 28,2 17,6 9,6 68,4 36-50 51+ 2,4 5,4 7,4 30,2 22,6 9,4 77,3 Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08.

Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

2. Elections impact public expectations

The reporting period saw active campaigning related to the local elections, which had a certain impact on public attitudes regarding the economic situation, with a change in how the public views recent economic developments. In fact, there was a reduction in September, compared to June 2008, in the percentage of the sample who said that their household economic circumstances had deteriorated over the preceding year, down from 33.73% to 27.05%, at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole. There was also an increase in the percentage who said their household circumstances had improved, up from 14.4% to 15.51%. This trend holds good for both entities, but the opposite is true of Br~ko district (see table IV below).

Table IV Politics in BiH are getting.....?

BiH FBiH RS Survey Jun. 08. Sept 08.Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. TOTAL BETTER 14,04 15,51 16,27 14,61 11,16 17,52 STAY THE SAME 51,54 57,10 52,12 56,75 51,42 59,69 TOTAL WORSE 33,73 27,05 30,73 28,46 36,97 22,17 DK/NA 0,69 0,35 0,88 0,18 0,45 0,61 Total 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,00 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research Br~ko District Jun. 08. Sept 08. 6,58 2,58 37,75 18,48 55,67 78,94 100,00 100,00 BMA Sept 08. 13,1 54,8 32,1 100,0 CMA Sept 08. 19,9 63,7 15,6 0,8 100,0 SMA Sept 08. 17,5 59,7 22,2 0,6 100,0

43

EWS - Q3

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

There are more optimists, or people who think the economic situation will improve over the coming year, in the Republika Srpska, where the percentage in fact increased from 18.4% in June to 26.6% in September. In Bosniak majority areas, the percentage of optimists reduced from 10% in June to 7.9% in September, while there was an increase in Croat majority areas, from 6.5% to 9.7%. There was no change in the number of pessimists, or those who expect the economic situation to deteriorate, in the Republika Srpska, while the number rose in Bosniak majority areas and fell in Croat majority ones (for more details see table V in the annex). The samples expectations regarding continued privatisation and its impact on their household finances may be seen in table VI in the annex. Comparing the data from the September and June polls, we find that there was an increase in the number of pessimists, that is those who expect privatisation to have a negative impact on household finances, in both the Federation and the Republika Srpska, but a reduction in Br~ko.1 In September 2008, 59.3% of the Federation sample, 58% of the Republika Srpska sample, and 32% of the Br~ko sample expressed a pessimistic view of the impact of further privatisation. It should be noted that the percentage who expect privatisation to have a positive impact on household finances was unchanged in the Federation and the Republika Srpska, but fell in Br~ko.
Graph I: Percentage who expect their income to rise/fall

There was an increase in the percentage of the sample in both entities who expect their household cash income to increase over the coming six months, with 21.05% of the Federation sample and 26.05% of the Republika Srpska sample now of this opinion. There was, however, also an increase in the percentage of the Federation sample that expects household income to fall, with a decrease in the Republika Srpska (see table VII in annex). According to our September poll, the percentage that expects household income to increase went up in both urban and rural areas, while the percentage that expected it to fall declined in rural areas and increased in urban ones.2 After a particularly active period in the first half of the year, when the prices of goods and services rose as a consequence of external shocks and global increases in commodity and fuel prices, it is possible to state that the reporting period introduced a certain price stability, if not a reduction of public concern regarding possible inflation. The fall in oil and food prices on world markets, in combination with a number of initiatives taken by government to calm price inflation, have produced a reduction in the percentage of the country level sample that expects prices to continue to rise (see table VIII in annex and following graph). According to our September poll, some 74.28% of the Federation sample and 71.59% of the Republika Srpska sample and only 10.76% of the Br~ko district sample said they expect prices to rise. Theres been no major

Graph II: Expect prices to rise (%)

A number of statements were made during August and September 2008 by representatives of the Br~ko district government regarding the successful nature of privatisation carried out so far, of 23 publicly owned companies, which have received investment of 90 million KM and created some 1500 new jobs. This partially moderates the concern expressed earlier regarding rural household income, as it suggests that income from agricultural activity may still be expected to kick in.

44

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

EWS - Q3

change in the percentage of the entity level samples who expect prices to fall, unlike the Br~ko district sample where the percentage has increased significantly. The unchanged level of income, combined with an increase in prices and a minor increase in interest rates on outstanding loans, means that fewer than 10% of the sample think they will be able to save anything over the coming year. This is a particularly worrying finding, given the current state of world financial markets, which, after domestic savings, represent the main source in Bosnia and Herzegovina of financing for loans to fuel personal consumption, a major motor of economic growth. In September 2008, only 7.13% of the Federation sample, 9.7% of the Republika Srpska sample, and 2.05% of the Br~ko district sample said they expect to be able to save. It is worth noting that the 18 to 35 age group were most likely to say they would be able to save (for more details, see table XIX in annex). According to the September poll, there has been a reduction compared to June in the percentage of the samples in the Federation and the Republika Srpska who think they might lose their job, with an increase in Br~ko district (see table X below). The over-50 age bracket are most likely to fear losing their job, which is indicative of the structural problems still affecting Bosnia and Herzegovina (incomplete restructuring of companies, weak unions, and the obsolete knowledge and skill sets of individual workers, etc.).
Table X Think they might lose their job during next three months (%)
FBiH RS Br~ko District 18-35 Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 15,88 14,97 18,09 8,98 11,39 18,85 13,34 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research 36-50 51+ Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 16,12 10,20 11,94 14,65

At the end of this section, we will review the percentages of the sample said they would support forms of public protest, strike, or demonstration regarding particular issues (job loss, low wages, endangered rights, etc.). Comparing the September and June poll results, we find that there has been a reduction in the percentage would support public protests, etc, in both entities, with an increase in Br~ko district (see table XI in annex). Some of the results for September 2008 look as follows: - The Federation sample continues to be more likely than the Republika Srpska or Br~ko district samples to support protests, strikes, etc. (see following graph), with the exception of the behaviour of the international community. - The urban sample is more likely to support organised forms of the expression of discontent on certain issues than the rural sample. - The 36 to 50 age group remains the age group most likely to support protests. - The Federal sample was most likely to support protests regarding job loss (53.5%), low salaries and pensions (51.9%), and inability to find employment (50.9%). - At the same time, the Republika Srpska sample was most likely to support protest to protect their ethnic or civil rights (47.3%), the recovery of property (46.9%), and job loss (45.6%). - In Br~ko district, the sample was most likely to support protests related to low salaries and pensions (45.2%).

3. Purchasing power and standard of living unchanged

According to the entity statistics office data for the first six months of 2008, salaries rose more than the consumer price index in both entities, though salaries increased rather more in the RS than in the FBiH (see Table XIII below). 45

EWS - Q3
Average salaries in FBiH and RS (Dec. 07 - July 08)

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

Consumer Price Index trends (Jan. to Aug. 2008)

A look at the entity statistics offices data on salary trends and the consumer price index suggests that there were no major changes this quarter (table XIII in annex). The average salary in July was 765 KM in the Republika Srpska and 763.51 KM in the Federation. This represents a nominal increase of 21.34% in the Republika Srpska on December 2007, compared to just 7.91% in the Federation. The average salaries for July 2008 whereas 0.92% in the Republika Srpska and 1.55% in the Federation on the salaries of May the same year. In the Republika Srpska, salaries increased most for those employed in construction, tourism, and agriculture. In the Federation, it was healthcare, construction, and fisheries (for more details, see table XIIIb in annex). The entity statistics office data indicated that the consumer price index increased 0.2 points in the Republika Srpska between July and August 2008, while there was a fall of 0.4 points in the Federation (see table XIV below). If we compare the data for August with those from December 2007, we find that the consumer price index rose 4.2 points in the Republika Srpska and 4.43 points in the Federation. If we review the data in terms of area of consumption, we find that in the Republika Srpska, between July and August 2008, it was the price of accommodation and fuel that rose most, while the prices of food and drinks, transport, and clothes and shoes actually fell. During the same period, in the Federation, it was similarly the price of Table XIV accommodation and fuel and communications that rose most, while the price of food and drinks, Consumer price index (CPI) itemized (August 2008) transport, and shoes and clothing fell.
RS
VIII 2008/ VIII 2008/ VII 2008/ VIIII 2007 VII 2008

FBiH
VIII 2008/ VIII 2008/ VIIII 2007

Total Food and non-alcoholic beverages Alcohol and tobacco Clothes and shoes Accommodation, water and other utilities Furniture, furnishings, and regular maintainance Healthcare Transport Communications Recreation and culture Education Restaurants and hotels Other goods and services Source: Entity Statistics Offices

100,20 99,70 100,40 99,50 102,80 100,90 100,20 99,10 100,00 100,00 100,00 100,30 100,20

109,40 113,50 101,80 98,20 113,60 102,20 101,30 118,20 103,60 104,80 104,10 105,70 103,00

99,96 99,56 100,12 99,84 101,86 100,19 100,20 98,71 101,57 100,07 100,22 100,34 100,36

109,59 115,24 101,39 98,47 110,05 103,16 98,57 115,65 104,77 105,47 103,99 109,92 103,99

It is necessary to draw attention to relative salaries and living costs in different areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in particular to differences between municipalities and cantons. It is well-known that living costs are greater in urban than in rural areas, thanks to the higher cost of communal services and food. The recent wave of price rises, however, and burgeoning inflation left their trace throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and on all sectors of the population. While there is a certain convergence in salaries, at the level of the entities, worrying differences are also beginning to appear between municipalities and cantons. In the absence of exact indicators for the municipal level, we have used the canton-level data for the Federation to throw some light on this widening gap in average salary

46

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE (see table 13c). As the standard deviation has increased through 2008, it is clear that the salary gap between cantons has been increasing. We can only suppose that the situation would be even more severe if we had access to municipal level data, as the cantons themselves have significant numbers of public sector employees, which is not normally the case with municipalities.

EWS - Q3
Standard deviation in average salary trends for FBiH by canton (2008)

During the reporting period, there was no significant increase in the level of the average pension. According to the entity pension and disability insurance funds, the average pension for August 2008 was 347.5 KM in the Federation and 300.95 KM in the Republika Srpska. This represents an increase of 2.19% in the Federation and 0.12% in the Republika Srpska, compared to the average pension for May 2008. There was no increase in the maximum pension during the Table XV period (see table XIIIa in annex). The September poll suggests an increase in spending on certain items in the household budget, compared to others, including clothing and shoes and education, in both entities, no doubt related to preparations for the return to school (see table XV). There was also an increase in relative spending on food and drink and transport in the Federation, while communal services and debt repayments took up more of the household budget in the Republika Srpska.
Average household spending by item (as % of total)
FBiH RS Quarter 08 FOOD CLOTHING/SHOES TOBACCO HYGIENE FUEL AND CAR MAINTENANCE PUBLIC TRANSPORT CHILDCARE REPAYMENTS HOUSE REPAIRS MEDICAL EXPENSES RECREATION EDUCATION (CHILDREN) ELECTRICITY WATER TELEPHONE GAS
Mar. Jun. Sept . Mar. Jun. Sept.

4. Minimum wage and social welfare on the backburner

Even though the reporting period coincided with the election campaign, during which it was possible to hear many promises related to changes in social policy, there are no signs in current legislation or practice to suggest that the situation is likely to change significantly over the short term. Social welfare is, under both entity and cantonal regulation, delegated to the responsibility of the municipal centres for social work, though there is an obligation in the Federation on the Cantons to secure resources. In the Republika Srpska, the situation is different, as public policy regarding social protection is created at the level of the entity, but the municipalities are expected to implement and provide resources for it. This has led to major differences between the municipalities in the Republika Srpska (and between cantons in the Federation) in their ability to guarantee the rights to social protection and a minimum standard of living. As a rule, the larger and more developed municipalities and towns allocate more resources in their budgets (even considered as a percentage of their budgets) for such purposes, while small and underdeveloped municipalities, where there is in fact an even greater need for such help, are unable to meet their beneficiaries needs. It is no surprise that so many municipal mayors would like to see this responsibility shifted from the local to a higher level of government. A number of moves made by the authorities during the reporting period suggest that systematic solutions are still required with regard to the provision of a minimum standard of living and ade47

32,9 28,2 32,9 30,5 30,6 29,1 5,5 5,3 6,7 5,7 6,0 7,7 4,6 4,3 4,6 5,3 5,8 5,7 6,3 6,3 6,7 6,1 7,0 6,5 6,1 5,8 5,3 6,1 6,8 6,1 2,3 2,3 2,9 1,5 2,6 2,2 1,1 1,6 1,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 4,4 5,0 4,9 4,2 3,8 4,4 3,4 5,8 3,2 2,1 3,4 3,2 7,0 6,7 5,9 8,4 7,3 6,5 3,9 4,3 3,5 3,0 4,3 3,5 4,0 4,4 5,4 4,3 2,9 4,7 8,8 8,5 7,3 12,4 9,5 9,5 3,3 3,8 3,1 2,6 2,7 3,0 4,9 5,8 4,9 6,6 5,8 6,0 1,5 1,7 1,4 0,7 0,8 1,1 100,0100,0100,0 100,0100,0100,0 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

EWS - Q3
Table XVII Self-description of household economic status(%)
BiH FBiH RS Br~ko District Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Barely surviving 10,1 9,5 8,9 7,7 10,3 11,7 39,2 13,7 Well below average 12,4 14,0 9,3 12,0 16,4 15,4 21,1 44,4 Below average 18,3 19,7 15,8 17,5 22,2 23,1 13,1 19,7 TOTAL below average 40,7 43,2 34,0 37,2 48,9 50,2 73,4 77,8 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

Urban Rural BMA Sept 08. Sept 08. Sept 08. 9,1 9,7 3,2 9,0 17,8 9,1 20,4 19,3 16,0 38,5 46,7 28,3

CMA Sept 08. 7,9 8,7 25,5 42,0

SMA Sept 08. 16,4 21,7 20,1 58,2

quate social welfare/production. Representatives of the international institutions like the World Bank recognise this problem and are working together with government representatives on systematic solutions to target social benefits more effectively. There is considerable concern that the global financial crisis will hit the poorest hardest, particularly in countries which do not have efficient systems for targeting social benefits and where government enjoys considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate resources. Insufficient oversight in the recognition of the right to increased benefits on the part of the disabled veteran population (on the basis of unemployment benefit) continues to put terrible pressure on the Federation budget. Similarly, the 28 million KM put aside by the Republika Srpska government to mitigate the consequences of price inflation on the worst off proved little more than an ad hoc measure, with no appreciable impact on the target population. There continues to be a need for systematic progress in the timely targeting of individuals in need of various forms of social protection (a review of the social welfare databases, an increase in the inadequate funding provided for these purposes, and politicisation and lobbying for particular solutions, etc.).3

To illustrate the problem, we cite the fact that the number of beneficiaries of some forms of social protection (home help, child allowance, social welfare, and disability allowance) was 600,000 in 2006. With the approximately 1,000,000 individuals categorised as unemployed or pensioners, this means that the number of social protection beneficiaries, broadly understood, is nearly 1.6 million

48

I
1. Context

II III IV V VI VII VIII

SOCIAL INCLUSION

The character of the reporting period was determined by the campaign for the local elections, which left a certain imprint on the attitudes of the various social groups normally termed minorities.1 While the focus of our reports, with regard to social exclusion, is on the opinions of the minority groups in one or other of the ethnic majority areas, we cannot ignore the samples more general attitudes towards issues of gender, age, or place of residence. While the general view remains that the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is more rural than urban, development over the past decades has affected both urban and rural areas and the populations that live in them.2 Economic indicators suggest that household income and the general economic situation are considerably worse in rural than urban areas. Major factors leading the rural population to consider itself socially excluded include the ambiguous employment status of people who work in agriculture, the inadequate pension and disability insurance policy for agricultural workers, and low levels of participation in local decision-making.3 When it comes to how they view the economic status of their own households, the situation appears to have deteriorated between June and September for both the urban and rural samples. This is a particularly important finding, given that economic self-description corresponds to the number of people in or at risk of poverty. In September, some 38.5% of the urban and 46.7% of the rural population describes their household situation as below average. This is worse than the result of our June survey, but nonetheless better than the March 2008 results.
Table XI Self-description of household status (%) - March, June, and September 2008
Urban Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Total below average 44,1 38,0 38,5 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Rural Jun. 08. 42,8

Mar. 08. 53,1

Sept 08. 46,7

For more on incomes, social and economic status, and other points of comparison between public expectations in rural and urban areas see the preceding section on incomes and social welfare.

2 3

Social exclusion refers to the process whereby certain groups are systematically placed in subordinate and disadvantaged positions, as they are discriminated against on the grounds of their ethnicity, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, cast, origin, gender, age, disability, HIV status, immigrant status, or place of residence. Discrimination appears in public institutions, e.g. the legal, or educational, or health system, but also within social institutions e.g. households. See the Human Development Report 2007 Social Exclusion in Bosnia and Herzegovina, UNDP. According to the World Bank, some 53% of the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina is rural, as against 47% urban. Comparative research suggests that as many as 80% of local councillors come from the urban centres even of rural municipalities.

49

EWS - Q3

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Turning to matters of gender and age, we find that women report lower income than men, while the elderly are worse-off than the young. Naturally, we are not talking here about the issue of unemployment, as other surveys (the Labour Force Survey, the Household Spending Survey, and the Living Standards Survey) have shown that the young are twice as likely to be unemployed as the population more generally. This naturally creates major pressure on their desire to emigrate in search of a better future.

2. No significant changes in expectations

The poll results related to assessment of the current economic situation in the country indicated that Bosniak majority areas are the most pessimistic, while Croat majority areas are the most optimistic, regardless of whether one is looking at the majority or minority samples on the respective territories. (Table I). Thus, if we look at the ethnic majority areas, we find that 67.8% of the sample in Bosniak majority areas described the current economic situation as poor, as do 61.4% of the Serb majority area sample and 42.2% of the Croat majority area sample. The minority sample in any of the majority areas tends to describe the situation as worse than the majority sample, no doubt as a result of reduced access to employment or income-generating opportunities. It is worth noting that more of the Croat and Bosniak majority area minority samples described the situation as bad in September than did in June (see Table Ia in annex). This is to some degree a result of the rhetoric used during the election with regard to how to approach local issues. Only 7.3% of the Croat majority areas sample currently thinks that things are good, compared to 3.2% of the Bosniak majority areas sample and 3.1% of the Serb majority areas sample.
Table I Assessment of current economic situation in BiH (%)
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Majority sample Minority sample Majority sample Minority sample Total bad 67,8 72,0 42,2 58,7 61,4 64,0 Neither good nor bad 27,7 20,3 50,0 38,8 32,9 31,7 Total good 3,2 7,3 1,5 3,1 1,8 NA/DK 1,4 7,7 0,5 1,0 2,5 2,5 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table II Expect prices over next six months to. (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Fall 3,9 3,0 Rise 75,5 81,5 Stay the same 13,7 6,9 NA/DK 6,9 8,6 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 14,4 10,4 70,1 67,4 13,8 11,8 1,8 10,3 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 13,4 9,9 71,6 68,3 10,6 15,3 4,4 6,5 100,0 100,0

When we look at short-term expectations regarding prices, the poll results are in line with previous results (see Table II). So, 14.4% of the Croat majority areas sample, 13.4% of the Serb majority areas sample, and just 3.9% of the Bosniak majority areas sample said they expect prices to fall. The minority samples in each of the majority areas were less optimistic than the majority sample. Our poll shows that Bosniak majority areas remain the most convinced that prices will continue to 50

SOCIAL INCLUSION

EWS - Q3

rise, with 75.5% of the sample and as much as 81.5% of the minority sample of this opinion. The figure is somewhat lower for Serb majority areas (71.6%) and lowest for Croat majority areas (70.1%). It is worth stressing that in Serb and Croat majority areas, the minority sample is less likely than the majority sample to expect prices to rise. Our findings regarding expectations of increased income, presented in table III, are generally in line with the above findings regarding assessment of current economic conditions, namely that Croat majority areas are most positive (35.9% expect improved income). This compares to 26.5% of the Serb majority areas sample and 16.8% of the Bosniak majority areas sample.
Table III Expect household income over next six months to . (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Fall 13,0 15,9 Rise 16,8 16,7 Stay the same 62,8 60,8 NA/DK 7,5 6,6 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 15,0 11,9 35,9 25,4 44,6 53,3 4,5 9,5 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 13,3 9,0 26,5 28,9 55,0 58,1 5,2 4,0 100,0 100,0

Asked whether they expected to be able to save anything over the coming six months, the sample were generally speaking rather pessimistic, which is in line with their general assessment of the economic situation in the country, and no doubt in part due to the constant media bombardment of information on the crisis in world financial markets and the increasingly negative impact it is having on Europe. The authorities have, again through the media, attempted to calm the public and persuade them of the safety of the banking sector. There may be some doubt as to how successful this persuasion has really been, given that the public has already begun to feel the impact on its own pocket of gently rising loan payments, caused by higher interest rates on existing loans. Our poll shows that Croats in Croat majority areas are most likely to predict that they will be able to save something (10.7%), while the Bosniak majority area sample is the most pessimistic (6.7%).
Table IV Expect to save over next half year (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Yes 6,1 3,0 No 86,8 86,3 NA/DK 7,1 10,7 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 10,7 9,0 78,5 80,2 10,8 10,8 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 9,7 8,1 85,4 90,8 4,9 1,1 100,0 100,0

3. Assessment of political situation worsens

Political events have certainly affected public opinion significantly during the reporting period, which was only to be expected given the election. Some 61.5% of the population in Croat majority areas said they expect the political situation in Bosnia to get worse, which compares to 57.2% in Bosniak majority areas and 42.5% in Serb majority areas. The minority sample tended to be a little less pessimistic. According to our poll, optimism over likely political developments is considerably greater in Serb majority areas, where 42% expect improvement, as against 42.5% who expect deterioration. These results suggest that the Serb majority population see the political situation in black-and-white terms, with similar percentages expecting deterioration and improvement. 51

EWS - Q3
Table V Think political situation in BiH is. (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Deteriorating 57,2 60,6 Improving 31,8 29,6 NA/DK 11,0 9,7 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 61,5 64,5 23,3 17,1 15,1 18,4 100,0 100,0

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 42,5 43,2 42,0 39,3 15,5 17,5 100,0 100,0

Table Va Expect political situation to deteriorate (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample September 57,2 60,6 June 54,4 55,6 March 78,8 88,3 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 61,5 64,5 57,5 71,5 57,7 65,7 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 42,5 43,2 42,5 39,2 57,3 37,6

A look at the first two reports of 2008 suggests that there was a significant reduction in both Serb and Bosniak majority areas between March and June 2008 in the percentage of the sample who expected the political situation to deteriorate. The percentage in Bosniak majority areas increased again in September, while the percentage in Serb majority areas stayed the same. With regard to the Croat ethnic group, we find a rise in pessimism.
% of minority sample in each majority area who expect the political situation to deteriorate Self-assessment of household economic status(%)

The minority sample in Croat majority areas, in September, are most likely to expect deterioration in the political situation (64.5%), followed by the minority sample in Bosniak majority areas, with the minority sample in Serb majority areas well behind (43.2%). On the other hand, the last group showing the same increase in pessimism compared to March as the other two.

4. Levels of ethnic identification very high for minority samples in Serb and Bosniak majority areas
Looking at the majority sample in each of the ethnic majority areas, we find that Bosniaks are most likely to express strong pride in their ethnic identity (87.4%), followed at a certain distance by 52

SOCIAL INCLUSION

EWS - Q3

practically equal percentages of Serbs (78.4%) and Croats (78.3%). It is interesting to note that the minority sample in Serb majority areas express a higher level of ethnic identification (82.7%)4 than the majority population does. This is not the case in Croat majority areas.
Table VI Pride in ethnic identity (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 87,4 84,7 8,6 8,6 2,8 0,9 0,1 0,9 0,9 4,9 0,1 Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 78,3 72,9 11,9 11,1 6,4 2,0 1,0 1,5 7,6 0,8 100,0 6,3 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 78,4 82,7 15,5 9,3 2,5 1,8 0,7 0,9 1,5 5,4 0,6 0,7 100,0 100,0

Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

During the reporting period, the poll results regarding pride in being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina revealed a good fit between ethnic and civic identity only in the case of Bosniaks, while for both Croats and Serbs there was considerably less stress on civic identity (see Table VIII). Comparison of the data on civic and ethnic identification reinforces our earlier conclusion that for the Bosniak ethnic group identity on the basis of ethnicity is at much the same level as identity on the basis of citizenship, while for the Serb and Croat ethnic groups this is not the case, as they express considerably higher levels of pride in their ethnic identity.
Table VII Pride in being a citizen of BiH (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Very proud 81,1 76,7 Somewhat 12,4 9,6 Not much 4,1 6,9 Not at all 0,7 1,9 Not important 0,9 4,9 DK/Can't decide 0,6 NA/DK 0,2 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 36,1 60,2 29,1 16,3 16,3 3,1 6,2 6,5 8,8 7,6 1,4 2,1 6,3 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 21,0 60,8 30,2 15,1 18,7 10,8 15,0 11,6 10,9 1,2 2,3 2,5 100,0 100,0

Attitudes towards the High Representatives powers are another in the list of current political issues hotly debated at all levels of social and political life. A glance at Table VIII is enough to make clear that differences between the ethnic groups on the question of whether to increase or reduce the High Representatives powers are one of the main bones of contention in Bosnia and Herzegovina. While 22.6% of the Bosniak majority areas of the opinion that they should be reduced, this compares to 69.9% of the Serb majority sample and 42.2% of the Croat majority sample. There are similarly large differences between the ethnic groups as to whether the High Representatives powers should be increased, with just 2.8% of the Serb majority areas sample thinking they should be, compared to 33.1% of the Bosniak majority areas sample and 16.2% of the sample in Croat majority areas. Finally, when we look at ownership of consumer durables, like telephones and mobile phones, we find that the situation is pretty uniform across the country, with between 72 and 80% of the pop4 It is worth noting that minority groups that do not belong to the constitutive peoples were able to field candidates during these local elections, where the conditions for this existed, so that they could participate in local decision making through the minority lists.

53

EWS - Q3
Table VIII Thinks High Representative's powers should be. (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Reduced 22,6 18,4 Increased 33,1 36,0 Left as they are 29,7 31,3 NA/DK 14,5 14,3 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 42,2 17,2 16,2 31,3 36,1 42,1 5,4 9,3 100,0 100,0

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 69,9 23,8 2,8 23,3 20,0 43,4 7,3 9,5 100,0 100,0

ulation reporting that they have landlines, with the exception of the ethnic minority sample in Croat majority areas, 83.3% of whom do.
Table IX Possession of consumer durables
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Telephone 79,7 74,1 Mobile phone 68,8 50,5 Car 42,7 35,6 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 72,5 83,8 65,7 54,5 67,9 53,7 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 72,4 74,5 68,5 62,0 51,5 43,7

Here we should draw attention to whether or not a household has a landline as a potential alternative indicator for social exclusion, considered as access to services. In Croat majority areas, 67.9% of the majority population have a car, as does 51.5% of the majority population in Serb majority areas, and 42.7% in Bosniak majority areas.
Table X Believe that legal system will support them in the pursuit of their contractual and property rights (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Strongly agree 8,03 6,00 Somewhat agree 38,59 48,93 Somewhat disagree 15,29 15,71 Strongly disagree 20,99 15,79 NA/DK 17,10 13,57 Total 100,00 100,00 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 7,62 4,22 25,89 21,40 13,61 27,03 31,02 33,65 21,87 13,71 100,00 100,00 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 3,96 13,26 51,08 48,12 9,15 4,37 18,84 16,90 16,98 17,35 100,00 100,00

With regard to trust in the legal system, we find that the Serb majority sample is most likely to express confidence (55.03%), followed by Bosniaks (46.62%), and then Croats (33.51%). It is worth noting the group who were most likely to strongly agree with the thesis that the judicial system is deserving of support/confidence was the minority sample in Serb majority areas (13.26). They were also the group mostly likely to express confidence in the judicial system overall (61.39%).

54

II III IV V VI VII VIII

ETHNIC RELATIONS
Ethnic Stability Index unchanged

Last quarter we saw a jump in the index of four points, causing it to reach its highest levels of the last two years. This quarter, there is no change in the level of the index, in spite of our expectation that the traditionally heated election period would result in deterioration. The level of the index, therefore, remains 78 points, which is high, representing a real possibility of continued stabilisation.

1. Widespread manipulation of ethnic tensions

During this quarter, we covered yet another election, which was, as previously, characterised by intemperate statements, dirty political fighting, and the exploitation of nationalism to mobilise the electorate. Although these were local (municipal) elections, only a handful of parties presented clear political messages related to local themes, while the hot media stories continued to focus on the issue of the structure of the state, the relative position of the constitutive peoples, foreign policy, etc. Nonetheless, the elections took place without major incident. At the beginning of the quarter, in July, the provisional Stabilisation and Association Agreement came into force, which is to say implementation began of the trade agreement between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the European Union. A couple of weeks later, in Brussels, the first round of technical negotiations was held, and talks began on relaxing visa regimes for Bosnian citizens. In midJuly, Bosnia and Herzegovina was received into the Union of Mediterranean Countries. At the beginning of July, the Republika Srpska Prime Minister Milorad Dodik announced the taking of legal action against the UN and the Dutch government because the Dutch battalion had failed to protect the Serb villages around Srebrenica during the war. At the end of July, he announced an initiative to do away with the convertible mark as the currency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, to replace it with the euro. The Office of the High Representative rejected his claim that the Bosnian and Herzegovina prosecutor's office was under the direction of the international community. 55

EWS - Q3

ETHNIC RELATIONS

The Chair of the Republika Srpska National Assembly, Igor Radoji~i}, announced that politicians from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina were obstructing a census. The Bosnian and Herzegovinian Statistics Agency announced that a census could be completed by 2011, if the political will existed. International representatives argued for a census to be conducted which did not collect data on national or religious affiliation, which met with a negative reaction from Republika Srpska politicians. In early September, Milorad Dodik stated that the Republika Srpska would organise its own independent census in 2011, if agreement were not reached at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the Republika Srpska government announced its exit from Elektroprenos BiH (the statelevel electricity transmission company), ambassadors from the member states of the Peace Implementation Council demanded that the resolution be annulled. The Republika Srpska government complied with their demand. Loose commentary regarding the recent past escalated, as had been the case in previous years, around the day of commemoration of the anniversary of genocide in Srebrenica, 11 July. The American ambassador, Charles English, announced in Poto~ari that a genocide had taken place there, however difficult it was for some people to accept that fact. On the other hand, Milorad Dodik announced that a date would be designated as an official day of mourning for all Serbs from the Republika Srpska who lost their lives during the war. The Bosniak member of the Bosnian and Herzegovina Presidency, Haris Silajd`i}, forwarded a motion to the Constitutional Court requesting temporary measures in response to the anti-Dayton carry-on of the Republika Srpska authorities. In mid-September, the state-level House of Peoples passed a binding resolution calling on the Council of Ministers to initiate the process of establishing a TV channel in the Croat language. The Bosnia and Herzegovina Presidency did not adopt a joint platform for the state delegation in the United Nations General Assembly. As a result, the Serb member of the Presidency Neboj{a Radmanovi} informed the General Secretary of the UN, Ban Ki Moon, by letter, that Silajd`i}'s address represented his personal views and not those of the state. The Republika Srpska President Rajko Kuzmanovi} and member of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian presidency Neboj{a Radmanovi} called for a special session of the Republika Srpska National Assembly to debate relations within Bosnia and Herzegovina. The presidency of the SDA adopted a resolution insisting on implementation of the Dayton agreement and the continued existence of the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while contradictorily also launching an initiative for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A further current issue was the registration of 2000 Croats from Posavina currently resident in Croatia for the upcoming elections. In late August, the Central electoral commission rejected the request for additional registration. This was finally confirmed in early September. Former member of the Bosnian and Herzegovinian presidency, Ivo Miro Jovi}, declared that Sarajevo is a mono-ethnic city, which lectures the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina on multiculturalism. Representatives of one of the six ruling parties, the HDZ 1990, began publicly to broach the topic of creating a third entity, as their starting point for any future constitutional negotiations. The Croat member of the Bosnian and Herzegovina Presidency, @eljko Kom{i}, congratulated the authorities in the Republic of Croatia on the anniversary of military operation Storm, eliciting sharp reaction from political leaders in the Republika Srpska. The High Representative stated that Kom{i} had a political responsibility to explain his congratulations.

2. Increased sensitivity to ethnic rights

Our sample continues to report a relatively low level of harassment on ethnic grounds. During this quarter, there was a rise in the percentage of the urban sample who had not suffered any form of harassment on ethnic grounds over the previous year, up from 93.6% to 94.7%. The percentage 56

ETHNIC RELATIONS

EWS - Q3

was also up in rural areas, from 95.1% to 96.7%. The percentage who said they had suffered such harassment more than once was down from 1.9% to 0.6% in urban areas and from 1.8% to 0.8% in rural ones. Women were more likely to say they had not been harassed than men (97.2% as against 94.5% - Table Ia). Some 96% of both the older age groups said they had not suffered such harassment, compared to 94.7% of the younger group (Table I b) There was an increase in the percentage of the Bosniak majority areas majority sample who said they had not experienced such harassment over the past year, up from 93.5% last quarter to 97%. The minority sample percentage did not change, at 92%. The majority sample percentage who reported having been harassed on more than one occasion fell from 2.6% to 0.9%, while the minority sample percentage fell to 2%. Overall, the minority sample percentage that reported having had such experiences once or more was 6%. The majority sample percentage was a little above 1% (Table I c). In Croat majority areas, there was a drop in the percentage of the total sample who said they had not had such an experienced, down from 96.2% last quarter to 86.1%. The minority sample percentage fell from 88.8% to 86%. The majority sample percentage who claimed to have suffered harassment on more than one occasion was 6.3%. Some 12% of the minority sample said they had suffered harassment on one or more occasions, which compares to some 10% of the majority (Table I c). In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage who had suffered no harassment was up from 95.3% to 97.5%, while the minority sample percentage was up from 91.2% to 97.5%. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of the minority sample in these areas who said they had suffered such harassment on one or more occasions, down from 9% to 2.5% (Table I c).

3. Support for minority return recovers

There was an increase in the percentage of the urban sample who entirely or to some degree disagree with the idea that people not of the majority ethnicity and who lived in their area before the war should return to their homes, up from 10.8% to 12.6%. The percentage in rural areas was steady, at around 11.6%. There was a minor (and positive) drop in the number of men who disagree, from 13.1% to 12.6%, but an increase in the number of women, from 8.8% to 11.5% (Table II a).The percentage who entirely or to some degree agree with return is down for the youngest age group (from 86% to 83.6%), as it is for the middle age group (from 88.2% to 85.3%). There was no change with regard to the oldest age group, at 84% (Table II b). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage that basically or entirely agrees with the principle of minority return was up on the previous quarter, from 87.3% to 92.7%. The minority sample percentage declined from 91.1% to 88.3%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage declined steeply, from 80.9% to 60.8%, while the minority sample percentage rose from 77.5% to 82.9%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage declined, from 84.1% to 81.1%, as did the minority sample percentage, from 82% to 80% (Table II c).

4. Ethnic distance increases

The percentage of the Croat majority areas sample that finds it generally or entirely acceptable to live in the same country as Bosniaks declined from 76.9% to 67.4%. So did the percentage that thinks it acceptable to have Bosniak neighbours, from 76.1% to 67.2%, and the percentage that finds joint schooling with Bosniak children, from 75% to 55.3%. The percentage that thinks it acceptable for a family member to marry a Bosniak was up, however, from 29.4% to 36.2% (Table IV). The percentage that finds it generally or entirely acceptable to live in the same country as Serbs was also down (from 74.8% to 68.7%), as were the percentages who would accept them as neighbours (down from 74.6% to 67.8%) and who support joint schooling with Serb children (down from 74.3% to 67.5%). Again, the percentage who would accept a family member marrying a Serb, up from 19% to 28.3% (Table VI). In Serb majority areas, willingness to live in the same country as Bosniaks was down, from 81.1% to 70.7%, as was the percentage who would accept them as neighbours (from 76.3% to 57

EWS - Q3

ETHNIC RELATIONS

69.8%), or let their children go to the same school (from 74.1% to 68.1%). There is no change in the percentage that finds marriage with a Bosniak generally or entirely acceptable, at 27.9% (Table IV). The percentage happy to live in the same country as Croats also declined, from 81.1% to 71.8%, as did the percentage willing to have Croat neighbours (from 77.6% to 71.4%), the percentage happy with co-schooling with Croat children (from 77.3% to 68.8%), and the percentage open to mixed marriage with Croats (from 38.2% to 27.7%) (Table V). There was no change in the Bosniak majority areas percentage willing to live in the same country as Croats, at 96.7%, or to have them as neighbours, at 96.6%, and a minor fall in the percentage happy for their children to go to the same schools as Croat children (from 96.3% to 95.1%). Openness to intermarriage of a family member with Croats was down, from 35.7% to 32.4% (Table V). Readiness in Bosniak majority areas to live in the same country as Serbs was down, from 95.3% to 93.7%, as were the percentage who are happy to have Serb neighbours (from 95.2% to 92.7%), the percentage happy with joint schooling (from 94.6% to 91.2%), and the percentage happy to see a member of their family marry a Serb (Table VI).

5. Measures of ethnic pride up

There was no major change in the urban sample percentage who expressed a strong degree of pride in their ethnicity, at 77.3%. The percentage who expressed some degree of pride was up, while the percentage for whom it was not important was down from 2.2% to 1.5%. In rural areas, the percentage who said they felt a strong degree of pride was up from 83.8% to 86.8%, while the percentage who said they felt some pride was down (from 11% to 8.3%), as was the percentage who said they did not feel any pride (from 2.2% to 1.1%). Women are more likely than men to express strong levels of pride (83.1% against 82.4%) (Table VII a). The young are least likely to express strong pride in ethnicity (80%), while the percentage for both the older age groups was 84.5% (Table VIII b). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage who expressed strong pride in ethnicity was down, from 91.1% to 87.4%, while the minority sample percentage was up from 74.5% to 84.7%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage was up from 77.3% to 78.3%, but the minority rate was down from 85.1% to 72.9%. In Serb majority areas, the majority rate was up from 71.3% to 78.4%, as was the minority sample rate (from 71.4% to 82.7%) (Table VIII c). Strong pride in being a citizen of BiH was down in urban areas, from 51.5% to 46.3%. Moderate pride was correspondingly up (from 14.8% to 21.2%). In rural areas, the percentage who expressed a strong degree of civic pride was up, from 53.1% to 55.5%, as was moderate pride, from 14.3% to 21.6%. Women were more likely to express a strong degree of pride (53.4% as against 49.7%) (Table IX a). The oldest age group were most likely to express a strong degree of such pride (55.2%), while the middle age group was least likely (46.3%) (Table IX b). The percentage of the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas who expressed strong levels of pride in being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina declined, from 89.8% to 81.1%, while the minority sample percentage fell from 78% to 76.7%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage rose from 35.6% to 36.1%, while the minority sample percentage declined from 69.2% to 60.2%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage rose from 12.7% to 21%, while the minority sample rate rose from 54.3% to 60.8% (Table IX c). The urban sample percentage that thinks that the departure of EUFOR could lead to war in Bosnia and Herzegovina rose, from 14% to 19.9%. The rural sample percentage also rose, from 16.8% to 17.3%. Men were more likely to think so than women (20.9% compared to 16.1%) (Table X a). The middle age group are least likely to think so (14.7%), with the other two age groups scoring 19% (Table X b). There was an increase in such concern amongst the majority sample in Bosniak majority areas, from 16.2% to 26%. The minority sample percentage fell, from 20.8% to 17.5%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage rose from 12.4% to 15.5%, while the minority percentage from 26.4% to 19.6%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage declined from 15.4% to 11.5%, as did the minority sample percentage, from 18.4% to 13.5% (Table X c). 58

ETHNIC RELATIONS

EWS - Q3

There was a minor decline in the urban sample percentage that would support protests related to their ethnic or civil rights, from 54.8% to 53.7%. The fall in rural areas was from 52.8% to 45.4%. Men are more willing to protest than women (52.2% against 45.9%) (Table XI a). The middle age group are most willing to protest (Table XI b). The majority sample percentage in Bosniak majority areas in support of such protests fell from 61.3% to 49.8%, while the minority sample percentage fell from 53.2% to 39.1%. In Croat majority areas, both the majority and minority sample percentages rose (from 41.2% to 54.3% and from 35.5% to 48.9%, respectively). In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage declined (from 50.5% to 47.3%), while the minority sample rose, from 41.8% to 46.5% (Table XI c). There was a decline in the urban sample percentage that thinks that the religious communities have no influence on current political issues, from 31.5% to 29.3%. The rural rate rose from 39% to 42.8%. Men are more likely to think so than women (38.1% against 36%) (Table XII a). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage was down from 22.3% to 19.9%, while the minority percentage was down from 17.5% to 15.3%. In Croat majority areas, there was a reduction both majority and minority sample percentages, from 50.5% to 39% and from 34.4% to 18.3% respectively. In Serb majority areas, both majority and minority sample percentages were up, from 44.5% to 54.2% and from 46.9% to 50.5% respectively (Table XII c). The percentage of the urban sample who agree entirely or to some degree with the idea that only ethnic parties can ensure the protection of vital ethnic interests was up from 22.4% to 26.4%, while the rural sample percentage was up from 23.8% to 28.1% (Table XIII a). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample was unchanged, at 15.9%, while the minority sample percentage rose from 10.9% to 14.5%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage rose from 32.2% to 38.5%, while the minority sample rose from 18.4% to 28.1%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample percentage was unchanged, at 31.5%, while the minority sample percentage rose from 21.4% to 30.2% (Table XIII c).

59

II III IV V VI VII VIII

Security Stability Index up two points

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

The index continued to rise during this quarter, up two points, from 86 to 88, continuing its moderate rise after having fallen to the lowest level recorded. It seems safe to say the negative trend has come to an end. The election period does not appear to have had a direct impact on the Security Stability Index as it did not produce major shifts in security or threats.

1. No major security events during reporting period

The election campaign did not produce any major security crisis, but did involve the redeployment of dirty campaign methods, a disrespectful level of political sparring, and a fight to the death over who could put up the greatest number of posters, etc. There were recorded instances of intimidation or vote buying. All this cast an ugly shadow over the election period, contributing to the significant degree of voter apathy. The most alarming event took place in Doboj, where 17 SDS activists were arrested on suspicion of attempting to buy votes. The highest profile public safety issue during the quarter was the tepid police reaction to the violence planned in response to the opening of the first Queer Festival in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Religious meetings and rallies were announced for the relevant days, alongside calls for the lynching of the organisers of the Queer Festival. This was, however, not sufficient warning for the police to secure the necessary resources and capacity to ensure their basic safety. In spite of the police presence, a number of individuals were physically attacked and the festival cut short. The event sent a very poor picture of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a society, but also as a failed state that is unwilling or incapable of ensuring the basic safety of its citizens, regardless of their orientation. In early July, a spat developed between the government of the Republika Srpska and the nongovernmental organisation Transparency International. Representatives of TI claimed that there was 61

EWS - Q3

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

an attempt to frame certain employees of the organisation, who were accused of attempted blackmail. As TI is a major source of criticism of the current entity government, the question naturally arose as to the government's involvement and the use of unacceptable means to settle scores with the non-governmental sector. The international community became involved in the case, when the first deputy High Representative called for an end to the campaign against the non-governmental organisation. In late April, the SDS initiated the prosecution of Milorad Dodik, Omer Brankovi}, Miladin Dragi~evi}, and Mladen Lazendi} on the grounds that they were responsible for a hole in the budget of 25 million convertible marks. In mid-September, the opposition parties claimed that the auditor's report revealed a series of illegalities in the government's operations. At the end of September, Transparency International published its global report, which identified Bosnia and Herzegovina as the most corrupt country in the region, ranked number 93 out of 180 countries worldwide. Milorad Dodik accused deputy High Representative Rafi Gregorian of putting pressure on prosecutors and judges in the Bosnian and Herzegovinian legal system. At much the same time, the High Representative Miroslav Lajcak issued a statement to the effect that the RS government had instructed individual companies not to hand over copies of their tax records to the State Intelligence and Protection Agency or to the BiH Prosecutor's Office. In early September, the Croat member of the Presidency, @eljko Kom{i}, called on the Swedish government to reject the request for a pardon for Biljana Plav{i}.

2. Indicators mixed, but crime rate down overall

There was a reduction in urban areas in the percentage of our sample that said they or a member of their family had suffered a break-in at home, from 3.1% to 2.9%. There was also a reduction in the percentage reporting car theft. The percentage who had been pickpocketed was up, however, from 2.1% to 4.1%. There was no change in the percentage reporting a break-in at the workplace or extortion, at 1%. In rural areas, there was no change in the percentage reporting a break-in at home, at 1.9%, an insignificant increase in the percentage reporting a break-in at the workplace (1.2%), and an increase in the percentage reporting pickpocketing from 1.4% to 2.2%, as well as an increase in the percentage reporting theft of other valuables, from 1.1% to 1.5%. Men were more likely than women to be victims of a break-in at the workplace (1.6% compared to 0.6%), pickpocketing (4.1% as against 2%), and car theft (1.1% as against 0.4%) (see table I a) The youngest age-group were the age-group most likely to report having suffered a break-in at home or at work, as well as car theft, while the middle-aged were the ones most likely to be pickpocketed (see table I b) In Bosniak majority areas, there was a reduction in the percentage of the majority sample who reported a break-in at home, from 3.2% to 2,3%. There was also a minor reduction in the percentage reporting a break in the workplace (from 1% to 0.7%). The minority sample percentage was down from 3.8% to 0.9%. The percentage of the majority sample who reported pickpocketing was also down, from 2.1% to 3.1%, while the minority figure was down from 5% to 2%. The was also a reduction in the majority sample percentage reporting car theft, from 1.6% to 0.5%, and in the percentage reporting blackmail (from 1.8% to 0.6%) (Table I c). In Croat majority areas, there was an increase in the percentage of the majority sample who reported break-ins at home, from 1.8% to 4.1%, but the reduction of the minority sample percentage (from 7.2% to 5%). The percentage of the majority sample who said that they or a member of their family had been the victim of a break-in at the workplace also rose (from 1.8% to 2.5%), while the percentage of the minority sample who said so fell significantly (from 6.2% to 0.5%). There was a significant reduction in the minority sample percentage reporting pickpocketing, from 7.4% to 3.1%, with no change in the majority sample percentage of 3.1%. There was a similar reduction in the minority sample percentage who said that their car had been stolen, from 6.2% to 0.5%. The majority sample percentage was 1%. There was a considerable reduction in the percentage of the minority sample in Croat majority areas who said they had been subject to blackmail, down from a high 6.9% to 0.5% (Table I c). 62

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

EWS - Q3

In the Republika Srpska, there was an insignificant change in the percentage of the majority sample who reported a break-in at home, at 1.9%. There was a minor rise in the percentage reporting a break-in at the workplace, from 0.7% to 1.2%. There was an increase in the percentage of the majority sample who reported pickpocketing, up from 0.9% to 3%, but no change in the minority sample value of 1.1%. The percentage of the minority sample who reported theft of other valuables fell from 2.1% to 0.9%, while the majority sample percentage rose from 0.9% to 2.5% (Table I c). There was an increase in the percentage of the urban sample who said that over the past three months they or a member of their family had sought police residents, up from 4.4% to 6.6%. The percentage fell in rural areas, from 5.5% to 3.7%. Men were more likely to seek assistance than women (6.5% compared to 3.5%) (Table II a). The middle-age group were most likely to seek assistance (8.5%), while the young where least likely (3.5%) (Table II b). In Bosniak majority areas, the percentage of the majority sample who sought intervention fell, from 6.6% to 5.9%, as did the minority sample percentage. In Croat majority areas, both the majority and minority sample percentages fell, from 4.1% to 3.1% and from 7.8% to 5.3% respectively. In the Republika Srpska, the majority sample percentage rose from 3.9% to 4.6%, while was no change in the minority sample percentage of 3.3% (Table II c). After the very negative results of last quarter, there has been a major reduction in the percentage of the sample who said they were not at all happy with police assistance received. The percentage in urban areas is down from 84.3% to 24.5%, while in rural areas it is down from 59.6% to 18.7% (Table III a). The middle age group is the one most likely to express dissatisfaction (Table III b). The majority sample percentage in Bosniak majority areas was also down from 76.5%. The generally dissatisfied percentage rose considerably (from 23.5% to 55%), while the percentage of the basically or entirely satisfied was 23.6%. The minority sample basically dissatisfied percentage was high (77%), while some 22.9% were basically satisfied with assistance. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample entirely dissatisfied percentage was down, as was the percentage that expressed partial dissatisfaction (from 53.3% to 23.5%). For the majority sample, we find 39.4% basically satisfied, with 25.7% entirely satisfied. For the minority sample, the dissatisfied accounted for 8.9%, while 91.1% were basically satisfied. In the Republika Srpska, there was a reduction in the percentage who were entirely dissatisfied with police assistance, from 61.6% to 25.9%, and an increase in the percentage who were basically satisfied, from 21.8% to 31%. The majority sample basically satisfied percentage was 36.1%, while some 7% were entirely satisfied. The minority sample basically dissatisfied percentage was 33%, as was the percentage who were either basically or entirely satisfied (Table III c). The percentage of the urban sample who said that a member of their family had been arrested without warrant during the last three months declined, from 1.8% to 0.9%. The decline in rural areas was from 2.1% to 0.7%. Men were more likely to have such experiences than women (1.1% as against 0.6%) (Table IV a). The middle age group were most likely to report having had such experiences (1.1%) (Table IV b). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample said it had fewer such experiences than previously (down from 2.6% to 0.9%). The minority sample percentage fell from 6.2% to 0.9%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage fell from 1.6% to 1.1%. In the Republika Srpska, the majority sample fell from 1.4% to 0.6%, while the minority sample was 1.1% (Table IV c). The urban sample percentage who said they had witnessed clear abuse of police powers during the past six months rose from 12% to 13.7%. In rural areas, the percentage fell from 10.1% to 4.1% (Table V a). The youngest age group were most likely to witness such a situation (12.1%) (Table V b). The Bosniak majority areas majority sample percentage rose, while the minority sample percentage did not change, at 8.9%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage fell from 10% to 3.2%, while the minority sample percentage fell from 17.7% to 10.1%. In Serb majority areas, the majority percentage fell from 14.8% to 8.2%, while the minority sample percentage was unchanged at 2.9% (Table V c). The percentage of the urban sample who approve of the performance of the police rose from 52.4% to 54.7%. The rural sample approval rating also rose from 51.3% to 53.9%. Men are more likely to give the police a good rating than women (55.4% compared to 53.1%) (Table VI a). The middle age group is the one most likely to express support for the police (55.5%), while the young are least likely (52.8%). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample percentage is up (from 34.8% to 46.1%), while the minority 63

EWS - Q3

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

approval rate is down (from 51.1% to 39.1%). In Croat majority areas, the majority sample approval rating fell from 49.1% to 39.3%, while the minority sample rating fell from 44.4% to 40.8%. In Serb majority areas, the majority sample approval rating fell from 70.8% to 66.9%, while the minority rating was unchanged at 77.3% (Table VI c). There was no major change in the approval rating of the courts in urban areas, at 48.9%. The rural approval rating rose from 45.9% to 49.6% (Table VI a). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample approval rating rose from 33.3% to 41.8%, while the minority sample approval rating fell from 47.7% to 37.1%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample rate fell from 37% to 35.8%, while the minority rate fell from 44.4% to 35.6%. In Serb majority areas, the majority rate fell from 65.2% to 60.3%, while the minority rate was unchanged at 68% (Table VI c). There was a fall in urban sample percentage who think that corruption is very widespread in the police force (from 45.4% to 41.4), as well as in the percentage who think that corruption is very widespread in the courts (from 50.3% to 46.4%). The same is true in rural areas with regard to both the police (down from 47.3% to 40%), and the courts (from 53.5% to 41.8%). The young are most likely to think corruption is very common in the police force (44.3%), while it is the middle age group who are most likely to think so of the courts (46%). In Bosniak majority areas, the majority sample is less likely to think corruption is very widespread in the police force, down from 60.5% to 53.9%, but the minority sample is more likely to think so, up from 51% to 65%. In Croat majority areas, the majority sample percentage is up, from 23.7% to 35.9%, as is the minority sample percentage, from 37.9% to 42.1%. In the Republika Srpska, the majority sample percentage fell from 40% to 28.9%, while the minority sample percentage is unchanged, at 17.6% (Table VII c). Bosniaks in Bosniak majority areas were less likely to think that corruption is very widespread in the courts, down from 62.8% to 59%, but the remaining population were more likely to think so, up from 52.8% to 63.7%. In Croat majority areas, the Croat percentage that thinks so is also down from 43.7% to 39.1%, while the minority sample percentage is up from 41.2% to 47.6%. In Serb majority areas, the majority percentage is down, from 44.8% to 29.9%, as is the minority sample percentage (from 26.1% to 24%).

64

II III IV V VI VII VIII

ANNEX

EWS - Q3

ANNEX

POLITICAL STABILITY IN BIH

The Political Stability Index of BiH

Table I Politics in BiH are getting...?

Gender Male June 08. % 48.3 40.4 11.3 100.0

Sample

All March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % Worse 67.0 50.0 50.9 Better 23.8 35.9 36.0 DK/NA 9.2 14.1 13.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

March 08. % 70.3 21.8 7.8 100.0

Sept 08. % 51.8 36.3 11.9 100.0

March 08. % 63.8 25.8 10.5 100.0

Female June 08. % 51.7 31.5 16.8 100.0

Sept 08. % 50.1 35.7 14.3 100.0

Table II Politics in BiH are getting...?

Ispitanici Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % Worse 78.8 54.4 57.2 Better 16.1 31.7 31.8 DK/NA 5.1 13.9 11.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 57.7 57.5 61.5 26.5 27.9 23.3 15.8 14.6 15.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 57.3 42.5 42.5 30.6 43.0 42.0 12.2 14.5 15.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

ANNEX
Table III Economic circumstances in BiH are currently... (%)
All Bosniak majority areas % 32.7 35.1 27.7 3.2 1.4 100.0 67.8 27.7 3.2 1.4 100.0 Croat majority areas % 13.2 15.4 56.6 10.9 0.7 3.2 100.0 28.7 56.6 11.5 3.2 100.0 % 15.2 30.1 47.4 5.5 1.9 100.0 45.3 47.4 5.5 1.9 100.0 % 16.0 26.2 50.0 7.3 0.5 100.0 42.2 50.0 7.3 0.5 100.0 Serb majority areas % 21.5 40.6 30.3 2.9 4.6 100.0 62.2 30.3 2.9 4.6 100.0 % 25.2 45.7 25.9 1.2 0.4 1.6 100.0 70.9 25.9 1.7 1.6 100.0 % 14.6 46.8 32.9 3.1 2.5 100.0 61.4 32.9 3.1 2.5 100.0

SRU - EWS

March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08.

Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

% % % % % Very bad 32.1 27.3 24.2 45.1 31.6 Generally bad 35.7 36.4 38.4 37.2 30.6 Neither bad nor good 25.9 31.4 32.2 14.5 32.1 Generally good 3.2 2.8 3.6 1.4 3.2 Very good 0.1 0.2 0.1 DK/NA 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL BAD 67.8 63.7 62.5 82.4 62.2 Neither bad nor good 25.9 31.4 32.2 14.5 32.1 TOTAL GOOD 3.3 3.0 3.6 1.4 3.3 DK/NA 3.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IIIa Economic circumstances in the RS are currently....

Republika Srpska March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % Very bad 19.6 21.9 16.5 Generally bad 39.2 39.5 38.5 Neither bad nor good 32.7 31.8 36.0 Generally good 7.0 5.7 6.6 Very good 0.2 DK/NA 1.4 1.1 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL BAD 58.7 61.4 55.0 Neither bad nor good 32.7 31.8 36.0 TOTAL GOOD 7.2 5.7 6.6 DK/NA 1.4 1.1 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IIIb Over the next year economic conditions in the RS will....
Republika Srpska March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % Deteriorate significantly 5.6 4.5 2.7 Deteriorate generally 20.7 19.1 19.0 Stay the same 37.9 53.7 44.7 Improve generally 28.7 17.2 24.9 Improve significantly 1.8 0.3 1.2 DK/NA 5.3 5.2 7.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL WORSE 26.3 23.6 21.7 Stay the same 37.9 53.7 44.7 TOTAL IMPROVE 30.5 17.5 26.1 DK/NA 5.3 5.2 7.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IV Would emigrate if they could

Age All % Yes No DK/NA TOTAL 42.2 47.5 10.3 % 38.2 50.3 11.4 % 41.6 47.9 10.6 % 64.7 23.6 11.7 18 - 35 % 61.3 27.7 11.0 % 64.5 24.3 11.2 100.0 % 51.1 35.9 13.0 100.0 36 - 50 % 46.1 39.7 14.3 100.0 % 45.6 41.6 12.7 100.0 % 18.6 73.7 7.7 100.0 51 + % 14.9 76.3 8.8 % 17.4 73.9 8.7 % 42.5 45.8 11.7 100.0 Male % 37.2 49.7 13.1 100.0 % 43.4 46.3 10.3 100.0 % 41.9 49.1 9.0 Gender Female % 39.2 51.0 9.9 % 39.9 49.3 10.8

March 08.June 08. Sept 08.March 08.June 08.Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08.June 08.Sept 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08.June 08.Sept 08.

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

EWS - Q3
Table V Would emigrate if they could
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % % % % Yes 48.7 36.8 48.2 41.4 43.5 48.8 No 44.2 52.4 41.2 44.7 40.4 44.0 DK/NA 7.2 10.8 10.6 14.0 16.2 7.2 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 34.7 38.0 31.5 52.0 50.8 56.3 13.3 11.2 12.1 100.0 100.0 100.0

ANNEX

Table VI You look at the process of BiH joining the EU with....

All
March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Bosniak majority areas

March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Croat majority areas

March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Serb majority areas

March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

% % % % % Hope 73.0 74.8 67.4 85.8 86.0 Concern 18.2 16.9 22.8 9.5 7.3 DK/NA 8.8 8.3 9.8 4.7 6.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

% 78.3 15.9 5.8 100.0

% 61.8 27.3 10.9 100.0

% 69.9 24.4 5.8 100.0

% 66.4 27.0 6.6 100.0

% 62.1 24.7 13.1 100.0

% 63.2 25.4 11.4 100.0

% 56.6 27.3 16.0 100.0

Table VII How important do you think EU membership is for BiH?

All
March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Bosniak majority areas

March 08.June 08. Sept 08.

Croat majority areas

March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Serb majority areas

March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

% % % Very 57.8 52.6 45.2 Somewhat 22.5 26.4 32.0 Neither important nor unimportant 11.1 11.4 13.8 Fairly unimportant 2.2 1.6 1.1 Not at all important 2.5 2.5 3.9 DK/NA 4.0 5.4 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL IMPORTANT 80.3 79.0 77.3 Neither important nor unimportant 11.1 11.4 13.8 TOTAL UNIMPORTANT 4.6 4.1 5.0 DK/NA 4.0 5.4 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

% % 80.6 77.9 11.7 9.5 3.6 3.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.6 8.7 100.0 100.0 92.3 87.4 3.6 3.6 0.5 0.2 3.6 8.7 100.0 100.0

% 60.9 28.1 7.6

3.5 100.0 88.9 7.6 3.5 100.0

% 45.5 21.3 19.1 4.8 2.0 7.4 100.0 66.7 19.1 6.9 7.4 100.0

% % 43.8 51.5 32.9 22.7 16.2 20.9 1.9 0.7 1.4 1.2 3.8 3.0 100.0 100.0 76.7 74.2 16.2 20.9 3.3 1.9 3.8 3.0 100.0 100.0

% 35.0 35.2 17.4 3.8 5.1 3.6 100.0 70.2 17.4 8.9 3.6 100.0

% 25.9 43.5 19.3 3.0 5.9 2.5 100.0 69.3 19.3 8.9 2.5 100.0

% 26.5 37.8 18.9 2.6 9.3 4.9 100.0 64.4 18.9 11.9 4.9 100.0

ANNEX
Table VIII To what extend to you support BiH joining the EU?
Sample
All March 08.June 08.Sept 08. % % % 61.1 52.6 50.9 18.8 24.6 24.7 11.3 12.9 14.4 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.9 3.3 5.1 3.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.9 77.2 75.6 11.3 12.9 14.4 5.5 4.8 6.4 3.3 5.1 3.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 86.5 78.7 72.2 7.5 9.2 15.8 3.2 4.2 7.6 0.1 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.3 7.5 3.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.0 87.9 88.0 3.2 4.2 7.6 0.6 0.4 1.2 2.3 7.5 3.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 47.7 43.6 45.6 18.8 32.7 19.4 19.5 16.8 27.4 3.7 1.4 1.4 2.6 0.7 1.9 7.7 4.8 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.5 76.4 65.0 19.5 16.8 27.4 6.3 2.1 3.4 7.7 4.8 4.2 100.0 100.0 100.0

SRU - EWS

Strongly support Somewhat support Neither for nor against Somewhat against Strongly against DK/NA Total TOTAL FOR Neither for nor against TOTAL AGAINST DK/NA Total

Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % 35.4 25.1 29.3 31.6 39.4 34.9 18.4 22.0 18.3 5.6 5.1 4.7 5.7 5.7 8.8 3.2 2.7 4.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 67.1 64.5 64.2 18.4 22.0 18.3 11.3 10.8 13.5 3.2 2.7 4.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IX Taking all the circumstances into account, which party represents the political perspective closest to yours? (%)
Gender All Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu SDA - Stranka demokratske akcije Stranka penzionera - umirovljenika BiH SDP BiH - Socijaldemokrati Liberalno demokratska stranka BiH Penzionerska stranka RS i Narodna demokratska stranka DNS - Demokratski narodni savez SDS - Srpska demokratska stranka Srpska radikalna stranka dr Vojislav [e{elj PDP RS - Partija demokratskog progresa RS Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata - SNSD Milorad Dodik Socijalisti~ka partija Narodna stranka Radom za boljitak HDZ - Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske Gra|anska demokratska stranka BiH Demokratska stranka invalida BiH - DSI BiH Kongresna narodna stranka za{tite prava boraca i gra|ana... Bosansko - podrinjska narodna stranka DSS - Demokratska stranka Srpske Zeleni BiH Evropska ekolo{ka stranka E-5 Hrvatska stranka prava BiH \api}-dr. Juri{i} Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 Hrvatsko zajedni{tvo Narodna bo{nja~ka stranka DEPOS - Demokratski pokret Srpske Pokret za promjene BiH Pokret mladih BiH BH Slobodni demokrati Demokrati Bosne i Hercegovine HDZ - Hrvatska koalicija - HNZ, HSP Patriotski blok BOSS-SDU BiH BPS - Sefer Halilovi} Some other None of the above DK NA 4.6 6.6 0.3 8.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 4.4 0.4 0.3 17.9 0.2 0.3 3.5 0.3 3.3 5.5 0.8 7.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 3.6 0.9 0.4 12.9 0.3 0.5 3.8 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 5.1 9.1 0.7 9.2 0.0 4.6 5.8 0.7 9.9 0.3 0.5 0.3 5.3 0.2 0.5 18.0 0.2 4.1 0.3 Male
Sept 08.

Female
March 08. June 08.

FBiH 6.2 8.3 0.1 7.8 0.1 7.7 10.9 0.4 14.3 0.3 5.3 8.9 1.3 12.4 0.2 8.7 15.5 0.4 1.1 0.2 14.5 0.1 1.1 0.6 10.6 1.0 0.7

RS 0.2

March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08.

Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.March 08.June 08.Sept 08.

3.2 6.4 0.8 6.8 0.3 0.2 0.7 3.7 1.0 0.6 13.5 0.5 0.4 3.8 0.2

4.0 9.9 1.3 10.8

4.7 7.3 7.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 3.5 0.6 0.1 17.7 0.3 0.4 2.8 0.3

3.4 4.6 0.7 8.4

0.5

0.2

1.5 5.4 0.5 0.8 14.1 0.8 0.5 4.9 0.1 0.1

2.2 5.7 0.2 0.9 13.7 1.0 0.8 5.4

0.3 3.6 0.8 0.1 12.4 0.2 0.6 3.7 0.6 0.1

0.9 5.1 0.8 0.7 14.4 0.6 0.2 4.5 0.2 0.3

0.3 1.2 3.6 9.1 13.0 2.3 1.2 0.9 2.0

0.4 5.8

0.8 6.5

45.1 32.7 35.3 0.4 0.9 1.9 0.9 0.2 8.4 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.0 1.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.2 1.0

0.1 1.3 0.6

0.3 0.8 0.0 0.1

0.2 1.2 0.6

0.5 0.6

1.4 0.5

0.4 0.7

0.1 1.0 0.1 0.1

0.5 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.1 1.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.1 2.0 24.8 7.8 8.2 100.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 31.9 11.7 7.3 100.0 0.1 0.9 0.3 34.3 12.7 10.7 100.0 0.5 0.3 0.9 26.1 12.8 8.0 100.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.3 2.5 0.2 0.2

0.6 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 30.5 34.3 25.5 29.1 34.3 11.0 11.8 10.4 10.4 10.9 6.6 9.5 8.1 5.8 8.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

1.1 1.5 0.1 0.5 31.8 35.4 25.9 27.8 32.4 24.6 15.7 14.2 13.3 3.9 8.4 6.1 6.4 9.0 5.7 6.7 9.8 11.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

EWS - Q3
Table X Taking all the circumstances into account, which party represents the political perspective closest to yours?

ANNEX

Stranka za Bosnu i Hercegovinu SDA - Stranka demokratske akcije Stranka penzionera - umirovljenika BiH SDP BiH - Socijaldemokrati Liberalno demokratska stranka BiH Penzionerska stranka RS i Narodna demokratska stranka DNS - Demokratski narodni savez SDS - Srpska demokratska stranka Srpska radikalna stranka dr Vojislav [e{elj PDP RS - Partija demokratskog progresa RS Savez nezavisnih socijaldemokrata - SNSD - Milorad Dodik Socijalisti~ka partija Narodna stranka Radom za boljitak HDZ - Hrvatska demokratska zajednica BiH Srpska radikalna stranka Republike Srpske Gra|anska demokratska stranka Bosne i Hercegovine Demokratska stranka invalida BiH - DSI BiH Kongresna narodna stranka za{tite prava boraca i gra|ana... Bosansko - podrinjska narodna stranka DSS - Demokratska stranka Srpske Zeleni BiH Evropska ekolo{ka stranka E-5 Hrvatska stranka prava BiH \api}-dr. Juri{i} Hrvatska demokratska zajednica 1990 Hrvatsko zajedni{tvo Narodna bo{nja~ka stranka DEPOS - Demokratski pokret Srpske Pokret za promjene BiH Pokret mladih BiH BH Slobodni demokrati Demokrati Bosne i Hercegovine HDZ - Hrvatska koalicija - HNZ, HSP Patriotski blok BOSS-SDU BiH BPS - Sefer Halilovi} Some other None of the above DK NA

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. % % % % % % % % % 9.8 6.6 11.3 0.4 0.5 0.2 14.0 11.3 19.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 1.7 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 18.2 15.7 18.4 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.2 3.6 10.6 9.1 13.0 1.0 2.3 1.2 0.7 0.9 2.0 45.1 32.7 35.3 0.4 0.9 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.8 1.8 2.5 1.1 0.2 26.2 29.3 37.8 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 10.1 4.5 2.1 4.4 5.5 6.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.4 33.0 17.4 3.4 100.0 0.9 2.0 35.1 15.3 9.6 100.0 0.8 0.3 3.2 23.2 14.8 5.3 100.0 0.4 27.7 9.4 16.9 100.0 2.3 36.5 10.7 6.9 100.0 35.5 8.1 7.4 100.0 27.8 3.9 6.7 100.0 32.4 8.4 9.8 100.0 24.6 6.1 11.8 100.0 1.6 0.1

Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

ANNEX
Table XI Do you agree with the following?
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas

SRU - EWS

Serb majority areas % 11.4 28.9 28.7 21.7 9.4 100.0 40.3 28.7 21.7 9.4 100.0 9.3 22.3 29.1 30.0 9.4 100.0 31.5 29.1 30.0 9.4 100.0 10.6 25.3 30.4 23.8 10.0 100.0 35.9 30.4 23.8 10.0 100.0 12.4 21.3 31.6 24.0 10.7 100.0 33.7 31.6 24.0 10.7 100.0 9.3 15.9 40.6 20.7 13.5 100.0 25.1 40.6 20.7 13.5 100.0

March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

% % % % % % % % The parties currently in government are fairly successful in defining and implementing key reforms Strongly agree 0.1 2.9 3.5 3.0 4.7 1.3 15.7 5.8 Agree to some degree 9.1 12.4 6.7 13.3 8.5 7.0 25.5 28.0 Neither agree nor disagree 21.2 15.0 19.9 39.5 30.5 42.5 29.9 36.3 Disagree strongly 58.9 54.4 61.2 27.7 50.6 35.3 20.9 20.7 DK/NA 10.6 15.2 8.7 16.4 5.6 14.0 8.0 9.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL AGREE 9.3 15.3 10.2 16.4 13.2 8.3 41.2 33.9 Neither agree nor disagree 21.2 15.0 19.9 39.5 30.5 42.5 29.9 36.3 TOTAL DISAGREE 58.9 54.4 61.2 27.7 50.6 35.3 20.9 20.7 DK/NA 10.6 15.2 8.7 16.4 5.6 14.0 8.0 9.1 Total 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 5.4 4.5 1.1 11.7 5.1 Agree to some degree 8.7 6.0 5.9 10.8 4.7 6.8 23.2 18.2 Neither agree nor disagree 21.1 12.3 22.3 39.8 31.1 38.4 29.0 31.6 Disagree strongly 60.5 63.6 61.2 27.7 54.1 39.8 29.0 36.4 DK/NA 9.6 15.2 8.3 16.4 5.6 14.0 7.1 8.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL AGREE 8.8 8.8 8.2 16.1 9.2 7.8 34.9 23.3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.1 12.3 22.3 39.8 31.1 38.4 29.0 31.6 TOTAL DISAGREE 60.5 63.6 61.2 27.7 54.1 39.8 29.0 36.4 DK/NA 9.6 15.2 8.3 16.4 5.6 14.0 7.1 8.8 Total 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 3.1 4.2 0.4 13.4 4.6 Agree to some degree 7.5 9.5 5.6 12.9 5.0 5.0 22.2 24.6 Neither agree nor disagree 23.3 17.7 20.3 39.4 35.9 41.3 33.4 38.5 Disagree strongly 58.1 55.4 62.5 28.3 49.0 39.3 21.0 21.8 DK/NA 10.9 15.5 8.4 16.4 5.9 14.0 9.9 10.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL AGREE 7.7 11.4 8.7 16.0 9.2 5.4 35.6 29.1 Neither agree nor disagree 23.3 17.7 20.3 39.4 35.9 41.3 33.4 38.5 TOTAL DISAGREE 58.1 55.4 62.5 28.3 49.0 39.3 21.0 21.8 DK/NA 10.9 15.5 8.4 16.4 5.9 14.0 9.9 10.5 Total 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 3.5 4.2 1.2 15.7 6.5 Agree to some degree 6.5 7.1 4.3 11.7 4.6 5.4 20.6 22.0 Neither agree nor disagree 22.6 15.5 22.8 36.4 35.4 39.0 32.6 39.0 Disagree strongly 59.8 58.8 61.3 30.1 48.2 40.4 23.3 23.2 DK/NA 10.4 15.7 8.2 18.3 7.6 14.0 7.9 9.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL AGREE 7.2 10.0 7.6 15.3 8.8 6.6 36.2 28.5 Neither agree nor disagree 22.6 15.5 22.8 36.4 35.4 39.0 32.6 39.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 59.8 58.8 61.3 30.1 48.2 40.4 23.3 23.2 DK/NA 10.4 15.7 8.2 18.3 7.6 14.0 7.9 9.3 Total 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 12.5 20.0 19.8 10.8 7.8 Agree to some degree 27.2 15.5 21.4 20.1 20.3 15.8 15.6 14.7 Neither agree nor disagree 21.3 13.2 18.4 40.6 36.7 35.5 36.6 38.4 Disagree strongly 9.6 16.5 16.6 10.0 15.4 13.8 24.9 21.0 DK/NA 14.4 16.8 9.3 16.8 7.5 15.2 12.1 18.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL AGREE 54.7 53.4 55.6 32.7 40.3 35.5 26.4 22.5 Neither agree nor disagree 21.3 13.2 18.4 40.6 36.7 35.5 36.6 38.4 TOTAL DISAGREE 9.6 16.5 16.6 10.0 15.4 13.8 24.9 21.0 DK/NA 14.4 16.8 9.3 16.8 7.5 15.2 12.1 18.1 Total 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

EWS - Q3

ANNEX

INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY IN BIH

Table Ia Do you approve of the work of.? (%)
Gender All Male Female March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. BiH Presidency Yes 41.5 No 34.9 Not applicable 1.0 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.2 DK/NA 8.4 Total 100.0 BiH Parliament Yes 41.3 No 35.0 Not applicable 1.1 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.1 DK/NA 8.6 Total 100.0 Council of Ministers Yes 41.3 No 34.7 Not applicable 1.0 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.4 DK/NA 8.6 Total 100.0 FBiH Parliament Yes 40.5 No 35.1 Not applicable 1.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.4 DK/NA 8.5 Total 100.0 FBiH Government Yes 40.9 No 34.7 Not applicable 1.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.2 DK/NA 8.8 Total 100.0 RS National Assembly Yes 41.2 No 36.3 Not applicable 0.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.6 DK/NA 9.6 Total 100.0 RS Government Yes 41.4 No 36.0 Not applicable 0.3 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.7 DK/NA 9.6 Total 100.0 Municipal authorities Yes 53.4 No 25.1 Not applicable 0.3 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.4 DK/NA 8.8 Total 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research 38.4 39.8 3.3 9.5 9.0 100.0 37.4 41.1 3.2 9.2 9.1 100.0 37.0 41.3 3.4 9.2 9.1 100.0 35.3 42.8 3.1 9.5 9.3 100.0 35.3 42.5 3.1 9.8 9.3 100.0 36.5 41.3 3.2 9.8 9.2 100.0 37.1 41.2 3.1 9.2 9.3 100.0 47.2 31.7 3.0 9.2 8.9 100.0 38.5 39.7 1.4 12.1 8.3 100.0 37.6 40.0 1.5 11.8 9.0 100.0 38.4 39.9 1.4 11.7 8.6 100.0 37.3 39.9 2.0 11.9 9.0 100.0 36.3 40.8 2.1 11.6 9.2 100.0 37.8 38.7 1.5 11.3 10.7 100.0 38.1 39.1 1.6 11.4 9.9 100.0 46.5 32.2 1.6 11.0 8.7 100.0 41.9 36.8 1.0 13.4 6.9 100.0 41.9 36.5 1.2 13.0 7.3 100.0 41.3 36.8 1.1 13.5 7.3 100.0 40.7 37.1 1.3 13.7 7.2 100.0 40.8 37.2 1.3 13.4 7.3 100.0 41.0 39.3 0.5 11.2 8.0 100.0 42.1 37.7 0.3 11.9 7.9 100.0 53.2 26.8 0.5 12.0 7.6 100.0 40.6 42.0 4.2 8.1 5.2 100.0 39.0 44.2 3.9 7.7 5.2 100.0 39.2 44.1 4.4 7.2 5.2 100.0 37.2 46.0 4.0 7.6 5.3 100.0 37.0 45.4 4.0 8.4 5.3 100.0 36.9 45.3 3.9 8.1 5.8 100.0 37.7 44.9 3.7 7.6 6.0 100.0 51.0 33.1 3.9 6.6 5.4 100.0 35.0 45.1 1.9 9.7 8.3 100.0 34.4 45.2 2.0 9.4 8.9 100.0 35.8 44.4 2.0 9.3 8.4 100.0 33.5 45.5 2.5 9.8 8.8 100.0 32.9 46.3 2.7 9.3 8.8 100.0 36.2 41.8 2.2 9.4 10.4 100.0 36.5 42.4 2.4 9.3 9.3 100.0 43.5 36.7 2.4 8.8 8.6 100.0 41.1 33.1 0.9 15.0 9.8 100.0 40.7 33.5 0.9 15.1 9.7 100.0 41.4 32.7 0.9 15.3 9.7 100.0 40.3 33.3 1.5 15.1 9.8 100.0 41.1 32.2 1.5 15.1 10.1 100.0 41.4 33.4 0.4 13.8 11.0 100.0 40.7 34.3 0.4 13.4 11.3 100.0 53.6 23.5 0.1 12.9 9.9 100.0 36.2 37.7 2.5 11.0 12.6 100.0 35.9 38.1 2.5 10.7 12.9 100.0 34.9 38.6 2.4 11.2 12.9 100.0 33.5 39.7 2.3 11.3 13.2 100.0 33.6 39.7 2.3 11.2 13.2 100.0 36.2 37.4 2.5 11.3 12.5 100.0 36.5 37.7 2.5 10.8 12.5 100.0 43.6 30.2 2.2 11.8 12.2 100.0 41.9 34.5 1.0 14.3 8.3 100.0 40.7 35.1 0.9 14.2 9.1 100.0 40.9 35.6 0.7 14.0 8.8 100.0 41.0 34.6 1.5 13.9 9.1 100.0 39.6 35.5 1.5 13.9 9.6 100.0 39.4 35.7 0.9 13.1 11.0 100.0 39.6 35.9 0.9 13.3 10.4 100.0 49.4 27.8 0.9 13.0 8.9 100.0

ANNEX
Table Ib Do you approve of the work of.? (%)

SRU - EWS

Gender All Male Female March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Cantonal Authorities Yes 39.4 No 36.0 Not applicable 0.6 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.4 DK/NA 11.6 Total 100.0 OSCE Yes 49.4 No 24.7 Not applicable 1.3 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.9 DK/NA 12.7 Total 100.0 OHR Yes 46.8 No 26.5 Not applicable 1.5 Neither approve nor disapprove 13.0 DK/NA 12.1 Total 100.0 UNDP Yes 48.5 No 22.5 Not applicable 1.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 13.3 DK/NA 14.3 Total 100.0 EUFOR Yes 46.1 No 25.1 Not applicable 1.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.1 DK/NA 13.4 Total 100.0 EU Yes 45.2 No 23.0 Not applicable 1.3 Neither approve nor disapprove 14.2 DK/NA 16.2 Total 100.0 US Yes 40.5 No 30.6 Not applicable 2.2 Neither approve nor disapprove 13.2 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 European Integration Directorate Yes 45.6 No 22.9 Not applicable 1.1 Neither approve nor disapprove 13.9 DK/NA 16.5 Total 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research 29.5 45.3 3.7 9.7 11.8 100.0 40.4 33.4 2.8 11.0 12.4 100.0 40.3 33.1 2.7 11.7 12.2 100.0 42.4 29.7 3.0 11.9 13.0 100.0 39.9 32.9 2.9 12.1 12.3 100.0 41.7 29.6 3.3 11.8 13.7 100.0 36.4 36.2 3.3 11.5 12.6 100.0 41.7 29.3 2.9 12.5 13.7 100.0 34.6 43.5 1.2 10.7 10.0 100.0 44.1 32.4 1.6 11.2 10.7 100.0 42.9 33.4 1.5 11.2 11.0 100.0 43.8 29.5 1.5 11.6 13.5 100.0 42.1 32.9 1.4 11.1 12.5 100.0 42.3 29.4 1.7 11.6 15.1 100.0 36.7 37.1 2.2 11.5 12.4 100.0 42.1 30.1 1.6 11.2 14.9 100.0 40.0 37.5 0.7 12.1 9.7 100.0 50.3 25.5 1.0 11.8 11.5 100.0 47.7 27.1 1.2 12.4 11.5 100.0 48.2 24.7 1.5 12.1 13.5 100.0 46.6 25.9 1.5 13.4 12.6 100.0 45.5 24.9 1.3 13.6 14.8 100.0 41.1 32.2 2.0 11.9 12.9 100.0 46.1 24.6 1.1 13.1 15.1 100.0 31.1 49.4 5.8 5.9 7.8 100.0 41.9 36.1 3.7 10.0 8.2 100.0 41.4 36.3 3.5 10.9 8.0 100.0 44.6 32.2 3.4 11.0 8.8 100.0 42.3 36.1 3.4 11.3 6.9 100.0 43.7 33.2 4.1 10.4 8.6 100.0 37.3 40.8 4.3 9.6 7.9 100.0 44.5 31.7 3.4 11.3 9.0 100.0 31.8 48.9 1.8 9.1 8.4 100.0 41.8 36.3 1.7 9.4 10.8 100.0 40.5 37.2 1.7 9.8 10.8 100.0 41.9 32.8 1.7 9.7 13.9 100.0 39.9 35.9 1.7 9.7 12.8 100.0 40.1 33.1 1.7 10.0 15.1 100.0 33.3 41.4 2.8 9.8 12.7 100.0 40.0 34.0 1.7 9.3 15.0 100.0 38.8 34.6 0.5 12.6 13.4 100.0 48.6 23.9 1.6 12.0 13.9 100.0 45.9 26.0 1.8 13.6 12.7 100.0 48.7 20.5 1.3 14.5 15.0 100.0 45.5 24.3 1.3 14.6 14.1 100.0 45.0 21.3 1.3 14.8 17.6 100.0 39.9 29.1 2.4 14.4 14.2 100.0 45.0 21.3 1.2 14.6 17.9 100.0 27.9 41.4 1.6 13.3 15.7 100.0 39.0 30.8 2.0 11.9 16.4 100.0 39.3 30.0 1.9 12.5 16.2 100.0 40.3 27.3 2.7 12.7 17.1 100.0 37.6 29.8 2.4 12.8 17.4 100.0 39.8 26.1 2.6 13.1 18.5 100.0 35.4 31.9 2.3 13.3 17.1 100.0 39.0 27.0 2.3 13.6 18.2 100.0 37.3 38.3 0.7 12.2 11.5 100.0 46.3 28.7 1.5 13.0 10.5 100.0 45.2 29.8 1.3 12.5 11.1 100.0 45.7 26.3 1.4 13.4 13.2 100.0 44.2 30.0 1.1 12.6 12.1 100.0 44.3 25.9 1.6 13.2 15.1 100.0 40.0 33.1 1.7 13.1 12.2 100.0 44.1 26.4 1.5 13.1 14.8 100.0

EWS - Q3
Table IIa Do you approve of the work of.? (%)

ANNEX

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. BiH Presidency Yes 28.2 25.3 No 47.8 49.4 Not applicable 0.8 4.7 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.7 7.2 DK/NA 11.4 13.5 Total 100.0 100.0 BiH Parliament Yes 28.1 23.6 No 47.6 51.3 Not applicable 0.8 4.7 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.8 6.9 DK/NA 11.6 13.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Council of Ministers Yes 27.7 22.9 No 47.5 50.9 Not applicable 0.8 5.1 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.3 7.5 DK/NA 11.6 13.7 Total 100.0 100.0 FBiH Parliament Yes 28.0 23.1 No 47.6 51.2 Not applicable 0.8 4.6 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.9 7.6 DK/NA 11.6 13.5 Total 100.0 100.0 FBiH Government Yes 28.1 22.2 No 47.9 51.2 Not applicable 0.7 4.6 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.5 8.5 DK/NA 11.7 13.5 Total 100.0 100.0 RS National Assembly Yes 16.9 15.1 No 57.4 57.4 Not applicable 4.9 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.2 8.5 DK/NA 13.5 14.1 Total 100.0 100.0 RS Government Yes 17.1 15.3 No 56.6 57.8 Not applicable 4.9 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.9 7.5 DK/NA 13.5 14.4 Total 100.0 100.0 Municipal authorities Yes 40.3 31.7 No 36.5 42.8 Not applicable 4.5 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.3 7.4 DK/NA 10.9 13.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research 31.8 50.7 1.0 8.7 7.8 100.0 30.5 50.7 0.9 8.8 9.1 100.0 30.8 51.8 0.9 8.8 7.8 100.0 31.5 50.8 0.9 8.5 8.4 100.0 29.8 53.1 0.9 8.2 8.1 100.0 22.2 56.9 0.9 7.5 12.5 100.0 23.2 57.7 0.9 7.5 10.7 100.0 37.9 45.2 1.0 7.7 8.2 100.0 46.6 21.7 1.9 17.6 12.2 100.0 46.3 22.2 1.7 17.2 12.6 100.0 45.8 22.6 1.5 17.5 12.6 100.0 45.7 21.9 1.4 18.4 12.6 100.0 45.9 22.2 1.4 17.9 12.6 100.0 30.0 36.5 0.6 17.9 15.0 100.0 29.5 36.8 0.6 17.7 15.4 100.0 48.7 19.6 1.0 16.9 13.7 100.0 31.4 48.3 1.9 13.6 4.8 100.0 31.1 50.1 0.8 13.1 4.8 100.0 30.7 51.8 0.6 12.4 4.5 100.0 30.4 51.7 13.4 4.5 100.0 30.8 52.0 12.7 4.5 100.0 23.6 56.0 0.8 13.7 5.9 100.0 24.4 54.8 0.8 13.7 6.2 100.0 42.5 36.5 0.6 15.6 4.8 100.0 32.4 33.4 3.2 18.2 12.8 100.0 33.4 33.6 2.0 17.5 13.5 100.0 35.0 32.0 2.0 17.5 13.5 100.0 33.9 32.6 2.2 17.8 13.5 100.0 33.4 33.1 2.2 17.8 13.5 100.0 18.3 38.3 3.7 23.7 16.0 100.0 16.9 39.7 3.7 23.7 16.0 100.0 34.1 28.0 2.6 20.7 14.7 100.0 52.9 26.0 0.6 16.6 4.0 100.0 52.9 25.9 1.0 16.2 4.0 100.0 53.5 25.2 0.8 16.4 4.0 100.0 50.9 26.7 2.0 16.6 3.9 100.0 51.9 25.0 2.0 16.8 4.3 100.0 72.7 12.4 0.4 11.2 3.4 100.0 73.3 12.2 0.2 10.7 3.5 100.0 69.8 14.1 0.2 11.2 4.7 100.0 53.9 27.3 2.4 10.8 5.6 100.0 53.6 27.6 2.4 10.6 5.9 100.0 53.6 28.0 2.4 10.1 5.9 100.0 49.1 31.4 2.6 10.3 6.6 100.0 49.9 30.6 2.6 10.3 6.6 100.0 65.0 17.8 2.2 9.7 5.3 100.0 65.8 17.6 2.0 9.6 5.0 100.0 65.5 18.0 2.3 9.1 5.1 100.0 45.7 30.3 1.4 14.6 7.9 100.0 44.7 31.2 2.1 14.1 7.9 100.0 45.9 30.1 1.8 13.8 8.4 100.0 42.6 31.1 3.3 14.4 8.6 100.0 42.0 30.6 3.6 14.2 9.5 100.0 61.6 17.1 1.6 12.3 7.4 100.0 61.6 16.7 1.9 12.4 7.4 100.0 58.6 19.4 2.1 12.1 7.8 100.0

10

ANNEX
Table IIb Do you approve of the work of.? (%)

SRU - EWS

Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Cantonal Authorities Yes 37.0 25.9 No 40.8 47.8 Not applicable 0.3 4.5 Neither approve nor disapprove 10.7 8.0 DK/NA 11.3 13.9 Total 100.0 100.0 OSCE Yes 52.2 36.3 No 21.3 31.8 Not applicable 1.9 5.6 Neither approve nor disapprove 10.8 10.5 DK/NA 13.8 15.8 Total 100.0 100.0 OHR Yes 55.4 38.6 No 17.9 27.5 Not applicable 1.9 5.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 10.9 12.2 DK/NA 13.8 16.3 Total 100.0 100.0 UNDP Yes 52.1 38.2 No 17.2 27.6 Not applicable 2.2 5.6 Neither approve nor disapprove 11.7 12.1 DK/NA 16.8 16.4 Total 100.0 100.0 EUFOR Yes 51.2 37.8 No 19.8 27.8 Not applicable 2.2 5.8 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.0 12.2 DK/NA 14.8 16.4 Total 100.0 100.0 EU Yes 47.9 37.3 No 18.6 27.8 Not applicable 2.2 6.2 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.8 11.5 DK/NA 18.5 17.1 Total 100.0 100.0 US Yes 44.6 33.6 No 22.5 30.9 Not applicable 4.1 7.0 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.7 11.4 DK/NA 16.1 17.1 Total 100.0 100.0 European Integration Directorate Yes 47.6 37.0 No 19.6 28.3 Not applicable 1.9 5.3 Neither approve nor disapprove 12.7 11.9 DK/NA 18.2 17.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research 34.4 47.8 1.0 8.2 8.6 100.0 49.7 31.1 1.3 7.0 10.9 100.0 51.4 28.8 1.3 7.7 10.8 100.0 49.9 26.1 1.3 7.4 15.4 100.0 50.4 27.9 1.3 7.2 13.1 100.0 46.7 27.4 1.4 7.4 17.1 100.0 42.7 33.6 2.9 7.9 12.9 100.0 47.4 27.4 1.4 7.0 16.8 100.0 47.9 19.4 1.8 18.1 12.9 100.0 49.1 17.6 1.7 16.5 15.2 100.0 48.0 18.5 2.5 16.0 15.0 100.0 49.2 16.1 2.1 17.0 15.5 100.0 48.8 15.3 2.6 17.4 15.7 100.0 49.4 15.6 1.8 17.0 16.1 100.0 45.3 19.7 1.5 17.4 16.1 100.0 48.0 16.6 1.5 17.5 16.3 100.0 42.3 36.6 0.9 15.7 4.5 100.0 45.7 32.8 0.4 15.5 5.5 100.0 46.1 31.6 0.6 15.6 6.1 100.0 48.0 28.4 1.4 15.9 6.3 100.0 47.1 30.3 1.3 15.5 5.7 100.0 47.0 29.2 1.6 15.9 6.3 100.0 48.7 27.8 0.5 17.0 6.0 100.0 44.6 31.4 1.1 17.2 5.6 100.0 35.3 28.1 2.1 19.6 14.9 100.0 32.5 30.2 2.3 20.3 14.7 100.0 31.5 30.0 2.2 21.6 14.7 100.0 35.1 26.3 2.0 21.4 15.1 100.0 32.3 29.8 1.7 21.6 14.7 100.0 35.9 24.7 2.0 20.3 17.1 100.0 32.2 27.9 1.4 21.7 16.8 100.0 35.0 24.7 2.4 20.7 17.2 100.0 44.1 32.1 0.6 12.2 11.0 100.0 34.2 40.4 0.6 15.2 9.6 100.0 41.9 31.9 0.2 14.6 11.4 100.0 37.0 35.4 0.2 16.0 11.4 100.0 38.5 31.5 0.2 15.6 14.2 100.0 31.6 45.0 0.2 13.0 10.2 100.0 40.1 29.7 0.2 14.8 15.2 100.0 41.3 36.6 0.6 10.2 11.3 100.0 38.3 41.0 0.4 10.2 10.0 100.0 43.3 33.5 0.7 10.5 11.9 100.0 37.9 40.6 0.2 11.1 10.2 100.0 43.0 32.7 0.7 10.9 12.8 100.0 33.3 46.4 0.2 10.0 10.1 100.0 44.1 30.6 0.7 11.9 12.7 100.0 39.8 35.7 1.6 13.3 9.7 100.0 35.2 41.0 1.4 11.8 10.6 100.0 38.2 35.4 1.6 13.3 11.6 100.0 34.2 40.8 1.2 12.2 11.6 100.0 37.6 34.2 1.8 13.6 12.9 100.0 29.4 45.6 1.6 12.3 11.1 100.0 36.6 36.1 1.6 13.0 12.8 100.0

11

EWS - Q3
Table IIIa How well do you thing the following institutions do their jobs? (%)
All Bosniak majority area Croat majority areas Serb majority areas

ANNEX

March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Central Bank of BiH Very well 10.4 9.5 12.8 14.8 Fairly well 37.8 38.3 37.6 37.4 Fairly poorly 19.6 19.7 19.2 14.1 Very poorly 5.5 6.6 7.2 6.1 DK/NA 26.7 25.9 23.2 27.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 48.2 47.8 50.4 52.2 TOTAL BAD 25.1 26.2 26.3 20.2 DK/NA 26.7 25.9 23.2 27.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Indirect Taxation Authority of BiH Very well 5.4 7.0 7.2 6.1 Fairly well 34.0 32.8 32.4 32.1 Fairly poorly 28.0 26.6 29.2 24.7 Very poorly 7.6 9.5 9.5 9.0 DK/NA 25.0 24.1 21.7 28.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 39.4 39.8 39.6 38.2 TOTAL BAD 35.6 36.1 38.7 33.7 DK/NA 25.0 24.1 21.7 28.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Entity Tax Authorities Very well 5.4 6.7 5.7 6.1 Fairly well 32.3 30.2 31.6 30.0 Fairly poorly 30.8 28.1 30.1 27.7 Very poorly 8.6 11.6 12.2 11.0 DK/NA 23.0 23.5 20.4 25.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 37.7 36.9 37.3 36.1 TOTAL BAD 39.4 39.6 42.3 38.6 DK/NA 23.0 23.5 20.4 25.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The Judicial System Very well 4.3 5.7 5.1 3.7 Fairly well 28.2 28.1 27.3 25.7 Fairly poorly 29.9 30.8 35.1 26.6 Very poorly 17.6 14.4 15.1 22.2 DK/NA 20.0 20.9 17.4 21.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 32.5 33.9 32.4 29.4 TOTAL BAD 47.5 45.2 50.2 48.7 DK/NA 20.0 20.9 17.4 21.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 European Integration Directorate Very well 4.3 6.6 5.1 5.3 Fairly well 28.7 32.7 28.6 28.0 Fairly poorly 27.7 24.3 30.2 25.2 Very poorly 8.5 7.6 11.0 10.5 DK/NA 30.8 28.7 25.1 31.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 33.0 39.3 33.7 33.3 TOTAL BAD 36.2 32.0 41.2 35.8 DK/NA 30.8 28.7 25.1 31.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

14.7 39.2 13.6 5.0 27.5 100.0 54.0 18.6 27.5 100.0 12.0 31.8 23.5 6.4 26.3 100.0 43.8 29.9 26.3 100.0 11.4 28.3 24.7 8.8 26.8 100.0 39.7 33.5 26.8 100.0 9.5 27.4 26.1 13.1 23.9 100.0 36.9 39.2 23.9 100.0 10.8 31.1 23.0 5.7 29.3 100.0 42.0 28.7 29.3 100.0

20.8 32.9 19.4 4.9 21.9 100.0 53.7 24.3 21.9 100.0 10.0 24.0 35.0 8.2 22.7 100.0 34.0 43.2 22.7 100.0 6.7 24.1 35.9 12.4 21.0 100.0 30.8 48.2 21.0 100.0 6.6 20.2 39.8 15.4 18.0 100.0 26.8 55.2 18.0 100.0 7.9 20.4 35.7 9.2 26.9 100.0 28.3 44.8 26.9 100.0

6.6 32.1 27.0 7.2 27.1 100.0 38.7 34.2 27.1 100.0 2.5 28.0 34.9 8.8 25.7 100.0 30.5 43.8 25.7 100.0 3.1 22.4 39.2 10.3 25.1 100.0 25.5 49.4 25.1 100.0 3.0 22.6 34.1 15.5 24.7 100.0 25.6 49.6 24.7 100.0 3.3 24.9 33.7 9.1 29.0 100.0 28.2 42.8 29.0 100.0

4.2 44.1 34.6 7.3 9.9 100.0 48.2 41.8 9.9 100.0 1.8 37.7 38.6 12.1 9.8 100.0 39.5 50.6 9.8 100.0 1.3 35.4 38.9 15.4 9.0 100.0 36.7 54.3 9.0 100.0 1.6 29.4 41.0 18.9 9.0 100.0 31.0 60.0 9.0 100.0 0.8 33.6 40.3 12.4 12.9 100.0 34.4 52.6 12.9 100.0

5.8 34.7 19.9 9.8 29.7 100.0 40.5 29.8 29.7 100.0 3.7 29.2 26.2 12.7 28.2 100.0 32.9 38.9 28.2 100.0 3.3 26.7 27.7 16.9 25.5 100.0 30.0 44.5 25.5 100.0 2.5 25.2 24.5 23.1 24.6 100.0 27.7 47.7 24.6 100.0 2.9 30.7 22.9 14.8 28.8 100.0 33.5 37.7 28.8 100.0

4.5 39.8 24.4 4.1 27.2 100.0 44.3 28.5 27.2 100.0 3.9 37.7 30.3 5.9 22.2 100.0 41.6 36.1 22.2 100.0 4.1 38.3 31.0 5.7 20.9 100.0 42.4 36.7 20.9 100.0 4.2 32.5 32.2 13.8 17.3 100.0 36.7 46.0 17.3 100.0 2.3 30.2 28.5 6.3 32.7 100.0 32.5 34.7 32.7 100.0

4.7 35.7 20.7 8.4 30.5 100.0 40.4 29.1 30.5 100.0 3.3 32.4 24.7 12.3 27.2 100.0 35.7 37.0 27.2 100.0 3.4 30.1 27.4 13.6 25.5 100.0 33.5 41.0 25.5 100.0 2.9 27.6 32.3 14.9 22.2 100.0 30.5 47.2 22.2 100.0 3.9 34.2 19.3 8.1 34.6 100.0 38.0 27.4 34.6 100.0

5.6 43.1 18.6 9.0 23.8 100.0 48.6 27.6 23.8 100.0 5.6 42.6 22.3 10.1 19.4 100.0 48.2 32.4 19.4 100.0 5.6 41.6 23.8 9.8 19.2 100.0 47.2 33.6 19.2 100.0 4.5 36.1 32.8 11.2 15.4 100.0 40.6 44.1 15.4 100.0 3.1 37.6 25.3 10.9 23.2 100.0 40.6 36.2 23.2 100.0

12

ANNEX
Table IIIb How well do you thing the following institutions do their jobs? (%)
All Bosniak majority area Croat majority areas

SRU - EWS

Serb majority areas

March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Foreign Investment Promotion Agency (FIPA Very well 4.0 6.0 5.7 3.8 Fairly well 29.8 30.1 26.2 27.8 Fairly poorly 25.0 23.5 27.0 24.7 Very poorly 8.7 9.5 12.3 10.7 DK/NA 32.5 30.9 28.8 33.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 33.8 36.1 31.9 31.6 TOTAL BAD 33.7 32.9 39.3 35.4 DK/NA 32.5 30.9 28.8 33.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Privatization Agency Very well 2.3 3.8 4.1 1.9 Fairly well 24.6 19.1 18.1 20.9 Fairly poorly 33.8 31.2 33.0 32.5 Very poorly 19.0 22.1 25.9 21.8 DK/NA 20.4 23.9 18.9 22.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 26.9 22.9 22.2 22.8 TOTAL BAD 52.8 53.3 59.0 54.3 DK/NA 20.4 23.9 18.9 22.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Employment Bureaus Very well 1.5 4.0 2.3 1.1 Fairly well 18.8 15.0 15.1 15.4 Fairly poorly 30.0 26.1 24.0 30.6 Very poorly 34.1 36.9 42.8 36.2 DK/NA 15.7 18.0 15.7 16.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL GOOD 20.2 19.0 17.4 16.5 TOTAL BAD 64.0 63.0 66.9 66.8 DK/NA 15.7 18.0 15.7 16.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

10.4 26.7 24.5 8.6 29.8 100.0 37.1 33.1 29.8 100.0 5.6 20.3 26.7 19.5 27.8 100.0 25.9 46.2 27.8 100.0 7.2 16.9 22.3 32.3 21.4 100.0 24.1 54.5 21.4 100.0

9.6 18.9 32.2 9.8 29.5 100.0 28.5 42.0 29.5 100.0 6.9 13.5 34.8 26.6 18.2 100.0 20.4 61.4 18.2 100.0 4.1 8.1 20.2 52.2 15.3 100.0 12.2 72.4 15.3 100.0

3.7 28.6 27.1 9.7 30.9 100.0 32.3 36.8 30.9 100.0 2.4 17.0 38.6 14.6 27.3 100.0 19.5 53.2 27.3 100.0 2.6 16.0 28.5 28.4 24.6 100.0 18.6 56.8 24.6 100.0

1.7 35.5 37.0 12.7 13.1 100.0 37.2 49.7 13.1 100.0 1.2 25.4 39.7 24.0 9.6 100.0 26.6 63.7 9.6 100.0 0.7 14.4 44.2 31.5 9.3 100.0 15.0 75.7 9.3 100.0

2.3 29.9 22.7 12.6 32.5 100.0 32.1 35.3 32.5 100.0 2.0 19.1 28.8 23.3 26.7 100.0 21.1 52.1 26.7 100.0 2.0 18.8 28.2 25.4 25.6 100.0 20.8 53.6 25.6 100.0

3.0 31.6 24.7 6.4 34.2 100.0 34.6 31.1 34.2 100.0 1.5 29.8 34.7 18.0 16.0 100.0 31.4 52.6 16.0 100.0 1.5 24.0 31.3 30.5 12.6 100.0 25.5 61.8 12.6 100.0

2.7 31.8 17.0 9.1 39.4 100.0 34.6 26.1 39.4 100.0 2.7 15.0 33.7 23.8 24.8 100.0 17.7 57.5 24.8 100.0 1.6 13.0 24.5 43.1 17.8 100.0 14.6 67.6 17.8 100.0

2.6 33.3 22.1 13.5 28.4 100.0 35.9 35.7 28.4 100.0 1.7 23.4 32.0 24.9 18.0 100.0 25.1 56.9 18.0 100.0 0.6 22.0 26.2 37.5 13.7 100.0 22.6 63.7 13.7 100.0

13

EWS - Q3
Table IVa

ANNEX

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 March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. BiH Presidency Not at all 3.5 2.4 2.5 A little 18.9 13.0 22.0 Moderately 13.5 14.6 16.6 Fairly 22.6 21.7 19.7 Very 41.6 48.3 39.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 BiH Parliament Not at all 2.3 2.2 1.5 A little 15.4 11.8 19.8 Moderately 14.1 14.5 17.0 Fairly 26.1 23.1 19.9 Very 42.1 48.4 41.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Council of Ministers Not at all 2.2 2.0 1.4 A little 14.7 11.8 19.3 Moderately 13.5 13.4 16.1 Fairly 26.2 23.6 21.2 Very 43.4 49.2 42.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 FBiH Parliament Not at all 2.4 1.9 1.6 A little 14.5 12.3 19.0 Moderately 13.0 12.7 15.8 Fairly 27.1 24.2 21.1 Very 42.9 48.9 42.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 FBiH Government Not at all 2.6 2.0 1.5 A little 14.2 11.9 17.6 Moderately 13.0 12.4 16.3 Fairly 27.4 24.0 20.5 Very 42.8 49.7 44.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 RS National Assembly Not at all 3.1 2.2 2.4 A little 13.6 10.9 17.2 Moderately 12.9 12.8 14.6 Fairly 25.8 24.2 20.9 Very 44.6 49.9 44.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 RS Government Not at all 3.0 2.4 2.4 A little 13.1 10.9 16.8 Moderately 13.5 12.7 13.1 Fairly 26.3 23.7 21.4 Very 44.2 50.3 46.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Municipal authorities Not at all 2.1 2.0 2.8 A little 13.9 11.8 16.1 Moderately 18.0 15.9 16.8 Fairly 25.8 21.9 22.1 Very 40.2 48.4 42.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research 3.1 19.9 12.6 18.3 46.0 100.0 2.3 15.8 11.8 23.5 46.6 100.0 1.7 15.1 11.8 22.6 48.8 100.0 2.2 14.6 12.2 23.0 48.0 100.0 2.2 13.8 12.4 23.4 48.2 100.0 3.0 12.1 12.6 23.2 49.2 100.0 2.6 12.5 12.6 24.3 48.0 100.0 2.1 13.0 18.0 23.8 43.0 100.0 3.1 14.6 15.5 19.0 47.9 100.0 3.1 13.0 14.7 21.1 48.2 100.0 2.8 13.7 13.6 21.6 48.4 100.0 2.9 13.8 13.3 21.1 48.8 100.0 3.2 13.0 12.9 21.5 49.4 100.0 3.6 12.1 12.0 22.9 49.4 100.0 3.9 11.6 11.8 22.9 49.8 100.0 2.8 12.1 15.0 20.8 49.3 100.0 2.3 20.8 17.6 17.9 41.4 100.0 1.4 18.2 17.8 18.4 44.2 100.0 1.2 19.1 15.9 19.7 44.0 100.0 2.1 17.8 16.3 19.6 44.2 100.0 1.7 16.7 17.6 18.0 46.0 100.0 2.5 16.5 16.5 18.3 46.3 100.0 2.8 15.3 14.0 19.2 48.8 100.0 2.3 14.4 19.0 19.5 44.7 100.0 3.8 17.8 14.3 26.8 37.3 100.0 2.3 15.0 16.3 28.7 37.6 100.0 2.7 14.3 15.2 29.9 37.8 100.0 2.6 14.4 13.8 31.3 37.9 100.0 3.0 14.6 13.7 31.3 37.4 100.0 3.2 15.1 13.3 28.4 39.9 100.0 3.4 13.6 14.4 28.3 40.3 100.0 2.0 14.8 18.0 27.8 37.4 100.0 1.6 11.5 13.7 24.5 48.8 100.0 1.3 10.5 14.2 25.2 48.7 100.0 1.2 10.0 13.3 25.6 50.0 100.0 0.9 10.7 12.0 27.4 49.1 100.0 0.8 10.7 11.8 26.6 50.1 100.0 0.8 9.7 13.6 25.4 50.5 100.0 0.8 10.2 13.5 24.5 50.9 100.0 1.3 11.4 16.9 22.9 47.5 100.0 2.7 23.1 15.6 21.6 36.9 100.0 1.6 21.3 16.2 21.3 39.6 100.0 1.6 19.5 16.3 22.6 40.0 100.0 1.2 20.2 15.3 22.7 40.6 100.0 1.4 18.5 15.1 23.0 42.0 100.0 2.3 17.9 12.7 23.5 43.6 100.0 2.0 18.3 12.3 23.5 43.9 100.0 3.2 17.8 14.5 24.6 39.8 100.0

14

ANNEX
Table IVb

SRU - EWS

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%)
Gender All OSCE Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total OHR Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total UNDP Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total EU Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very 12.1 18.0 24.9 17.6 27.4 100.0 13.8 19.4 25.2 16.3 25.4 100.0 13.5 21.6 25.6 15.1 24.3 100.0 13.5 20.9 25.5 15.2 24.9 100.0 8.9 14.5 24.0 17.0 35.6 100.0 9.9 13.6 23.9 18.7 33.9 100.0 10.2 13.9 23.5 19.3 33.2 100.0 10.7 13.8 24.8 17.7 33.1 100.0 8.7 21.2 24.2 19.5 26.4 100.0 9.2 21.6 23.9 19.8 25.4 100.0 8.8 22.9 23.2 19.0 26.1 100.0 9.0 23.1 23.4 18.6 25.9 100.0 12.1 18.5 25.7 14.6 29.1 100.0 13.4 19.4 24.1 14.1 29.0 100.0 13.1 21.1 24.2 13.5 28.1 100.0 12.9 21.7 23.5 13.2 28.6 100.0 13.2 21.6 23.0 14.2 27.9 100.0 10.5 15.4 24.6 16.6 32.9 100.0 11.6 14.5 23.2 19.9 30.8 100.0 11.5 15.0 22.9 21.0 29.5 100.0 12.8 14.9 23.6 19.0 29.7 100.0 11.5 17.3 23.0 18.7 29.4 100.0 7.8 20.1 26.2 17.0 29.0 100.0 7.4 21.0 25.4 18.4 27.8 100.0 6.7 21.0 25.3 17.6 29.6 100.0 7.3 21.7 24.0 17.3 29.7 100.0 7.2 21.8 23.6 17.6 29.8 100.0 12.1 17.6 24.2 20.5 25.6 100.0 14.2 19.3 26.3 18.5 21.7 100.0 13.8 22.0 27.0 16.7 20.5 100.0 14.0 20.1 27.4 17.1 21.4 100.0 13.9 20.3 27.1 17.2 21.4 100.0 7.4 13.5 23.5 17.4 38.2 100.0 8.2 12.8 24.7 17.4 36.9 100.0 8.9 12.8 24.0 17.5 36.7 100.0 8.7 12.8 25.9 16.4 36.3 100.0 9.2 12.6 25.4 16.4 36.4 100.0 9.5 22.3 22.3 21.8 24.0 100.0 11.0 22.3 22.4 21.2 23.2 100.0 10.8 24.8 21.3 20.3 22.8 100.0 10.6 24.4 22.9 19.8 22.4 100.0 10.9 25.2 21.5 20.5 21.8 100.0 Male
March 08.

Female
June 08. Sept 08.

March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Total European Integration Directorate Not at all 13.6 10.3 9.1 A little 21.0 14.9 23.5 Moderately 25.1 24.2 22.5 Fairly 15.7 17.5 19.1 Very 24.6 33.0 25.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

15

EWS - Q3
Table Va

ANNEX

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%)
Sample Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas
Sept 08.

March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08.

BiH Presidency Not at all 3.1 2.6 A little 15.2 9.1 Moderately 11.2 13.9 Fairly 16.9 14.7 Very 53.6 59.7 Total 100.0 100.0 BiH Parliament Not at all 0.8 2.6 A little 8.6 7.2 Moderately 11.0 12.3 Fairly 23.2 17.8 Very 56.4 60.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Council of Ministers Not at all 0.6 2.6 A little 8.0 7.2 Moderately 8.8 11.5 Fairly 24.5 16.5 Very 58.1 62.3 Total 100.0 100.0 FBiH Parliament Not at all 0.6 2.3 A little 8.0 7.0 Moderately 8.1 11.0 Fairly 25.6 16.7 Very 57.7 63.0 Total 100.0 100.0 FBiH Government Not at all 0.6 2.0 A little 8.6 7.3 Moderately 7.9 10.2 Fairly 25.5 16.4 Very 57.4 64.1 Total 100.0 100.0 RS National Assembly Not at all 0.6 2.5 A little 5.5 5.7 Moderately 6.7 9.9 Fairly 23.2 15.4 Very 64.1 66.5 Total 100.0 100.0 RS Government Not at all 0.6 2.5 A little 5.0 5.8 Moderately 6.5 9.6 Fairly 23.2 15.2 Very 64.6 66.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Municipal authorities Not at all 0.6 2.4 A little 8.8 7.1 Moderately 13.3 11.6 Fairly 23.2 16.5 Very 54.1 62.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research

4.1 15.6 11.6 15.7 53.0 100.0 2.2 12.9 11.8 16.4 56.8 100.0 1.9 12.5 10.4 18.4 56.8 100.0 2.7 11.1 11.0 17.4 57.8 100.0 2.5 9.1 11.3 16.4 60.8 100.0 2.3 5.1 11.6 18.0 63.0 100.0 1.9 5.1 9.1 19.1 64.8 100.0 3.5 8.9 13.3 17.6 56.7 100.0

3.3 18.5 25.2 24.4 28.6 100.0 2.4 17.8 26.8 24.5 28.4 100.0 3.2 15.2 28.5 25.4 27.7 100.0 2.7 18.3 26.4 26.4 26.1 100.0 2.5 16.5 26.9 26.4 27.7 100.0 2.4 13.7 24.5 25.1 34.3 100.0 2.3 12.3 24.3 26.5 34.6 100.0 2.8 12.3 29.0 27.1 28.7 100.0

1.0 12.3 20.5 45.5 20.7 100.0 1.3 9.8 21.8 46.3 20.8 100.0 1.0 9.3 21.6 46.3 21.8 100.0 1.3 11.0 19.1 47.3 21.2 100.0 2.1 8.6 19.1 47.9 22.3 100.0 1.0 5.9 17.5 50.1 25.6 100.0 0.5 5.3 20.7 48.7 24.8 100.0 0.8 12.1 26.4 37.8 22.8 100.0

2.9 20.8 27.2 28.0 21.2 100.0 1.3 17.2 30.7 24.2 26.6 100.0 1.9 15.0 30.2 28.1 24.8 100.0 1.3 15.7 27.3 28.4 27.3 100.0 1.4 14.5 28.0 30.2 25.9 100.0 1.4 14.2 21.8 31.3 31.4 100.0 1.4 13.7 23.9 29.6 31.4 100.0 2.2 14.1 23.5 29.0 31.1 100.0

3.9 23.0 11.2 27.9 34.0 100.0 3.7 22.4 11.7 29.6 32.6 100.0 3.5 21.4 12.5 28.3 34.4 100.0 3.9 20.5 12.5 29.3 33.8 100.0 4.9 20.0 12.3 29.6 33.2 100.0 5.7 22.7 14.5 28.7 28.4 100.0 5.5 22.3 16.1 29.2 26.9 100.0 3.3 20.2 19.0 27.7 29.8 100.0

2.4 16.5 12.9 21.2 46.9 100.0 2.0 17.0 13.2 21.1 46.6 100.0 1.7 16.9 12.0 23.8 45.6 100.0 1.7 17.4 11.5 24.8 44.6 100.0 1.9 16.7 12.0 24.5 44.9 100.0 2.3 17.9 14.2 25.0 40.6 100.0 2.9 17.9 13.2 24.7 41.3 100.0 1.8 16.0 16.9 22.2 43.1 100.0

0.8 28.7 17.0 22.2 31.3 100.0 0.8 27.9 16.4 22.8 32.1 100.0 0.8 27.6 16.4 22.4 32.9 100.0 0.6 28.4 16.7 22.3 31.9 100.0 0.6 27.5 17.3 21.6 33.0 100.0 3.0 30.3 14.9 20.6 31.3 100.0 3.3 29.5 13.7 21.1 32.5 100.0 2.3 23.9 17.6 25.0 31.2 100.0

16

ANNEX
Table Vb

SRU - EWS

How widespread do you think corruption, understood as taking bribes and abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions (%)
Sample OSCE Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total OHR Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total UNDP Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very Total EU Not at all A little Moderately Fairly Very 16.1 14.1 25.7 11.9 32.2 100.0 17.5 15.9 27.2 10.3 29.0 100.0 16.8 19.6 26.2 8.6 28.8 100.0 16.8 19.2 25.9 8.5 29.6 100.0 6.5 12.6 26.1 10.8 44.1 100.0 7.3 12.7 25.1 14.2 40.7 100.0 7.2 12.0 23.6 16.7 40.6 100.0 8.6 11.4 26.4 13.2 40.5 100.0 14.0 14.4 28.5 16.1 26.9 100.0 14.9 16.2 27.5 17.5 24.0 100.0 13.2 18.2 28.0 15.4 25.2 100.0 14.2 16.4 29.6 15.2 24.7 100.0 14.6 17.5 27.3 15.7 24.9 100.0 7.3 21.5 30.4 20.0 20.8 100.0 9.9 24.9 26.7 19.9 18.6 100.0 9.6 24.5 28.1 19.4 18.5 100.0 10.4 20.7 30.5 19.5 18.9 100.0 10.4 23.6 27.9 19.9 18.2 100.0 7.7 23.0 29.7 26.3 13.3 100.0 8.1 21.8 30.4 27.4 12.3 100.0 8.6 22.7 31.7 25.8 11.2 100.0 6.1 24.3 32.9 24.8 11.9 100.0 6.5 25.0 31.5 24.8 12.2 100.0 3.2 25.4 24.0 21.4 25.9 100.0 3.8 25.5 22.5 22.5 25.7 100.0 4.7 27.8 22.8 21.3 23.3 100.0 4.8 29.9 21.3 21.0 23.1 100.0 4.8 30.1 22.0 21.1 22.1 100.0 7.4 20.3 22.0 24.3 25.9 100.0 9.0 20.7 22.4 22.9 25.2 100.0 9.0 22.3 24.0 21.9 22.9 100.0 8.7 22.3 23.3 22.3 23.4 100.0 9.0 21.5 23.3 23.7 22.6 100.0 11.4 12.7 19.0 20.9 36.1 100.0 13.1 10.6 19.2 20.7 36.4 100.0 13.7 11.8 19.4 20.0 35.1 100.0 14.3 11.7 19.1 20.3 34.6 100.0 14.0 13.0 18.7 20.2 34.1 100.0 5.0 24.9 19.9 23.0 27.2 100.0 5.2 23.9 20.6 22.3 27.9 100.0 5.6 24.1 18.4 22.8 29.2 100.0 5.1 25.5 17.8 22.1 29.5 100.0 5.1 25.3 17.8 22.9 29.0 100.0 Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

Total European Integration Directorate Not at all 16.8 7.8 A little 19.2 12.6 Moderately 25.8 26.0 Fairly 8.2 13.0 Very 29.9 40.6 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS by PRISM Research

17

EWS - Q3
Table VI How would you assess measures taken by the High Representative in the following areas? (%)

ANNEX

Gender All Male Female March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Political reforms Very positive 10.1 Generally positive 36.2 Generally negative 24.6 Very negative 15.0 DK/NA 14.1 Total 100.0 Political reforms TOTAL POSITIVE 46.3 TOTAL NEGATIVE 39.6 DK/NA 14.1 Total 100.0 Economic reforms Very positive 9.9 Generally positive 34.6 Generally negative 27.5 Very negative 13.7 DK/NA 14.3 Total 100.0 Economic reforms TOTAL POSITIVE 44.5 TOTAL NEGATIVE 41.2 DK/NA 14.3 Total 100.0 Anti-corruption Very positive 10.1 Generally positive 32.8 Generally negative 26.4 Very negative 17.1 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 Anti-corruption TOTAL POSITIVE 42.9 TOTAL NEGATIVE 43.5 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 Civil service reforms Very positive 10.0 Generally positive 36.7 Generally negative 24.4 Very negative 14.0 DK/NA 14.9 Total 100.0 Civil service reforms TOTAL POSITIVE 46.7 TOTAL NEGATIVE 38.4 DK/NA 14.9 Total 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research 8.7 32.8 29.1 13.0 16.4 100.0 41.5 42.1 16.4 100.0 7.9 33.2 30.7 12.0 16.2 100.0 41.2 42.6 16.2 100.0 8.2 29.0 31.5 15.7 15.6 100.0 37.2 47.2 15.6 100.0 8.3 36.2 27.3 11.3 16.9 100.0 44.5 38.6 16.9 100.0 4.7 32.1 29.5 16.9 16.8 100.0 36.7 46.4 16.8 100.0 4.5 29.6 32.8 16.9 16.2 100.0 34.0 49.8 16.2 100.0 4.8 27.1 33.0 19.9 15.3 100.0 31.8 52.9 15.3 100.0 3.7 32.9 28.8 17.1 17.5 100.0 36.7 45.9 17.5 100.0 12.3 33.0 28.0 15.9 10.8 100.0 45.3 43.9 10.8 100.0 11.3 32.1 31.3 14.7 10.5 100.0 43.4 46.0 10.5 100.0 11.9 31.4 27.9 18.4 10.4 100.0 43.3 46.2 10.4 100.0 11.9 35.0 26.7 15.2 11.3 100.0 46.9 41.8 11.3 100.0 9.8 34.4 31.2 14.6 9.9 100.0 44.3 45.8 9.9 100.0 9.0 33.6 34.2 13.2 10.0 100.0 42.6 47.5 10.0 100.0 8.9 29.0 34.8 17.8 9.4 100.0 38.0 52.6 9.4 100.0 8.3 38.3 29.5 13.1 10.8 100.0 46.6 42.6 10.8 100.0 5.5 31.2 30.9 17.2 15.3 100.0 36.7 48.0 15.3 100.0 4.8 28.6 34.4 17.5 14.7 100.0 33.4 51.9 14.7 100.0 5.1 26.5 34.6 19.6 14.1 100.0 31.6 54.3 14.1 100.0 3.6 31.1 31.0 18.3 16.1 100.0 34.7 49.2 16.1 100.0 8.0 39.3 21.4 14.1 17.3 100.0 47.3 35.5 17.3 100.0 8.5 36.9 23.9 12.7 17.9 100.0 45.5 36.6 17.9 100.0 8.3 34.2 25.1 15.9 16.6 100.0 42.5 40.9 16.6 100.0 8.2 38.3 22.3 12.9 18.3 100.0 46.6 35.2 18.3 100.0 7.7 31.2 27.1 11.5 22.5 100.0 38.9 38.6 22.5 100.0 6.9 32.9 27.3 10.8 22.2 100.0 39.8 38.0 22.2 100.0 7.4 29.1 28.3 13.8 21.5 100.0 36.5 42.1 21.5 100.0 8.3 34.2 25.2 9.5 22.8 100.0 42.5 34.8 22.8 100.0 3.9 32.9 28.2 16.7 18.3 100.0 36.8 44.9 18.3 100.0 4.2 30.5 31.4 16.4 17.6 100.0 34.7 47.8 17.6 100.0 4.4 27.6 31.4 20.1 16.4 100.0 32.0 51.5 16.4 100.0 3.9 34.7 26.7 16.0 18.7 100.0 38.6 42.7 18.7 100.0

18

ANNEX
Table VII How would you assess measures taken by the High Representative in the following areas?
Bosniak majority areas
March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

SRU - EWS

Croat majority areas % % % 0.7 29.5 33.1 14.0 22.7 100.0 30.2 47.1 22.7 100.0 0.7 29.9 33.5 14.6 21.2 100.0 30.6 48.1 21.2 100.0 1.5 24.9 30.6 24.0 19.0 100.0 26.5 54.6 19.0 100.0 0.9 27.2 34.3 16.1 21.6 100.0 28.0 50.4 21.6 100.0

Serb majority areas % 1.7 27.5 36.1 23.5 11.2 100.0 29.3 59.6 11.2 100.0 2.5 29.7 37.0 19.9 11.0 100.0 32.2 56.8 11.0 100.0 2.6 29.4 34.6 23.6 9.7 100.0 32.0 58.2 9.7 100.0 3.0 33.4 34.1 17.1 12.4 100.0 36.4 51.2 12.4 100.0 % 3.2 24.4 40.6 17.3 14.4 100.0 27.7 57.9 14.4 100.0 3.3 30.1 39.3 13.4 13.9 100.0 33.3 52.8 13.9 100.0 3.6 27.5 39.3 16.5 13.1 100.0 31.1 55.8 13.1 100.0 5.4 32.7 34.9 11.6 15.5 100.0 38.1 46.5 15.5 100.0 % 1.1 25.6 31.9 23.7 17.7 100.0 26.7 55.6 17.7 100.0 0.9 24.0 36.6 22.0 16.6 100.0 24.8 58.6 16.6 100.0 3.7 26.0 30.9 24.4 15.0 100.0 29.7 55.3 15.0 100.0 1.2 31.1 28.3 20.0 19.4 100.0 32.3 48.3 19.4 100.0

March 08.June 08. Sept 08. March 08. June 08. Sept 08.

% Political reforms Very positive 18.5 Generally positive 43.7 Generally negative 17.0 Very negative 7.3 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 Political reforms TOTAL POSITIVE 62.2 TOTAL NEGATIVE 24.3 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 Economic reforms Very positive 17.5 Generally positive 39.6 Generally negative 20.7 Very negative 8.4 DK/NA 13.8 Total 100.0 Economic reforms TOTAL POSITIVE 57.1 TOTAL NEGATIVE 29.1 DK/NA 13.8 Total 100.0 Anti-corruption Very positive 17.6 Generally positive 38.6 Generally negative 19.5 Very negative 10.8 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 Anti-corruption TOTAL POSITIVE 56.1 TOTAL NEGATIVE 30.3 DK/NA 13.6 Total 100.0 Civil service reforms Very positive 17.1 Generally positive 42.1 Generally negative 16.9 Very negative 10.1 DK/NA 13.8 Total 100.0 Civil service reforms TOTAL POSITIVE 59.2 TOTAL NEGATIVE 26.9 DK/NA 13.8 Total 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

% 16.4 38.9 16.6 8.2 19.8 100.0 55.3 24.8 19.8 100.0 14.6 34.8 22.1 8.6 20.0 100.0 49.4 30.6 20.0 100.0 14.9 32.7 21.5 11.3 19.6 100.0 47.6 32.8 19.6 100.0 13.5 40.3 17.6 8.8 19.8 100.0 53.8 26.4 19.8 100.0

% 9.2 38.9 24.3 12.4 15.2 100.0 48.1 36.7 15.2 100.0 8.9 35.1 28.1 12.7 15.2 100.0 44.1 40.8 15.2 100.0 6.8 29.8 34.2 14.0 15.3 100.0 36.6 48.1 15.3 100.0 6.9 37.5 26.0 14.1 15.4 100.0 44.5 40.1 15.4 100.0

7.7 33.1 37.6 20.2 37.4 11.5 13.2 27.4 11.8 100.0 100.0 40.8 37.6 31.8 50.6 27.4 11.8 100.0 100.0 6.9 30.6 38.3 24.5 34.6 10.0 15.3 28.0 11.8 100.0 100.0 37.5 38.3 34.5 49.9 28.0 11.8 100.0 100.0 8.2 27.1 21.1 21.0 42.8 16.2 25.7 27.5 10.5 100.0 100.0 35.3 21.1 37.2 68.4 27.5 10.5 100.0 100.0 8.0 0.3 27.8 34.0 22.0 38.4 13.9 14.5 28.2 12.9 100.0 100.0 35.8 34.3 36.0 52.9 28.2 12.9 100.0 100.0

19

EWS - Q3
Table VIII In your view, should the High Representatives powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)
Gender All March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Reduced 38.3 43.5 43.9 Increased 29.5 15.4 18.9 Stay the same 21.8 30.8 26.7 DK/NA 10.3 10.3 10.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research Male March 08. June 08. Sept 08. 41.3 42.9 45.7 31.8 19.7 21.8 19.5 30.2 24.7 7.4 7.2 7.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 March 08. 35.5 27.3 24.1 13.2 100.0 Female June 08. 44.2 11.2 31.3 13.3 100.0 Sept 08. 42.2 16.0 28.6 13.2 100.0

ANNEX

Table IX In your view, should the High Representatives powers be reduced, increased or stay the same? (%)
Bosniak majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. Reduced 13.9 23.3 22.6 Increased 49.2 25.9 33.1 Stay the same 24.2 33.8 29.7 DK/NA 12.7 17.0 14.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research Croat majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. 29.0 40.2 42.2 32.6 15.5 16.2 22.7 39.8 36.1 15.7 4.5 5.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Serb majority areas March 08. June 08. Sept 08. 71.2 69.9 69.9 4.3 1.7 2.8 18.3 23.5 20.0 6.2 5.0 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

20

ANNEX

SRU - EWS

ECONOMIC STABILITY

Economic Stability Index

Table I Index of the physical volume of industrial production in BiH

VIII 2008 VIII 2008 I-VIII 2008 VIII 2007 VIII 2007 I-VIII 2007 FBiH 98.2 109.6 105.4 RS 100.2 109.4 107.8 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

Table II Total number of registered unemployed by entity

Jan-05 Jan-06 Mar-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jun-07 FBiH 328,225 349,137 351,867 367,449 371,156 370,961 370,410 REPUBLIKA SRPSKA 144,823 142,754 145,331 146,180 146,517 144,306 140,189 BiH 473,048 491,891 497,198 513,629 517,673 515,267 510,599 Source: Opinion poll conducted for the UNDP EWS project by Prism Research Aug-07 369,886 136,520 506,406 Sep-07 Jan-08 371,342 367,449 134,197 136,108 505,539 503,557 Mar-08 357,281 138,497 495,778 Aug-08 Women 340809 173.837 133.827 64.069 474636 237.906

21

EWS - Q3
Table III Retail Price and Cost of Living Indices
VIII 2008 VIII 2008 VII 2008 VIII 2007 FBiH 98.2 109.6 RS 100.2 109.4 Sources: Entity Statistics Agencies websites I- VIII 2008 I- VIII 2007 105.4 107.8

ANNEX
Table IV Central Bank of BiH Foreign Reserves (millions of KM)
Month XII '03 I '04 XII '04 I '05 XII '05 I '06 XII '06 I 2007 II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI I 2008 V VI VII VIII IX Reserves 2,781 2,785 3,458 3,451 4,196 4,233 5,400 5,137 5,519 5,289 5,699 5,751 5,899 6,203 6,298 6,475 6,518 6,413 6,637 6,480 6,531 6,699 6,805 6,834

Table V Balance of Trade of BIH

VIII 2008 I VIII 2008 I VIII 2008 I VIII 2007 + 16,7 % + 21,8 %

Exports 547 4531 Imports 1383 10861 Volume 1930 15392 Balance -836 -6330 Ratio 39.55 41.71 Source: BiH Statistics Agency, Priop}enje statistike vanjske trgovine, Broj 6, Godina IV, July 2008.

Table VI Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how?
BiH Got better Stayed the same Got worse N.A. TOTAL April 2006 % 9.2 55.1 35.1 0.6 100.0 Jun. 2006 % 10.8 54.1 34.7 0.4 100.0 Sept. 2006 % 11.4 57.6 30.7 0.4 100.0 Dec. 2006 % 15.3 61.4 23.1 0.1 100.0 April 2007 % 14.1 61.0 23.1 1.8 100.0 Sept. 2007 % 18.1 55.8 24.0 2.2 100.0 Nov. 2007 % 12.5 47.7 38.9 1.0 100.0 Mar. 2008 % 13.5 51.5 34.3 0.7 100.0 Jun. 2008 % 14.0 51.5 33.7 0.7 100.0 Sept. 2008 % 15.5 57.1 27.0 0.3 100.0

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 Better 11.6 13.0 11.5 17.0 The same 52.7 53.7 59.5 59.2 Worse 35.1 32.6 28.9 23.7 N.A. 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 Total 100.1 99.9 100.0 100.0 RS April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 Better 5.9 7.1 11.3 13.2 The same 58.9 54.6 54.5 64.6 Worse 34.8 38.3 33.6 22.1 N.A. 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 DB April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 Better 5.8 21.9 9.6 8.8 The same 52.2 54.4 64.3 62.9 Worse 42.0 23.7 26.1 28.3 N.A. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research April 2007 14.6 63.7 20.0 1.7 100.0 April 2007 13.3 56.8 27.9 2.0 100.0 April 2007 15.3 65.5 19.2 0.0 100.0 Sept. 2007 15.0 58.3 23.5 3.1 100.0 Sept. 2007 22.3 52.2 24.9 0.7 100.0 Sept. 2007 22.4 52.5 20.1 4.9 100.0 Nov. 2007 12.1 44.2 42.2 1.4 100.0 Nov. 2007 13.4 53.2 33.0 0.4 100.0 Nov. 2007 3.9 38.1 57.9 100.0 Mar. 2008 12.2 49.2 37.5 1.1 100.0 Mar. 2008 15.6 54.8 29.3 0.2 100.0 Mar. 2008 9.7 49.9 40.4 100.0 Jun. 2008 16.3 52.1 30.7 0.9 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.2 51.4 37.0 0.5 100.0 Jun. 2008 6.6 37.8 55.7 100.0 Sept. 2008 14.6 56.8 28.5 0.2 100.0 Sept. 2008 17.5 59.7 22.2 0.6 100.0 Sept. 2008 17.5 59.7 22.2 0.6 100.0

22

ANNEX
Table VIII Have your family's economic circumstances changed over the past year, and if so how? (%)
Bosniaks April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 Better 10.2 11.9 10.6 16.4 The same 53.6 52.2 58.1 60.3 Worse 35.5 35.3 31.1 23.2 N.A. 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Croats April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 Better 16.7 16.7 14.6 18.7 The same 49.6 59.1 64.2 55.6 Worse 33.6 23.4 20.9 25.5 N.A. 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 Total 100.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Serbs April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Dec. 2006 Better 5.9 7.1 11.3 13.2 The same 58.9 54.6 54.5 64.6 Worse 34.8 38.3 33.6 22.1 N.A. 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research April 2007 13.7 64.7 19.5 2.2 100.0 April 2007 18.1 60.3 21.7 100.0 April 2007 13.3 56.8 27.9 2.0 100.0 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 14.1 11.9 10.3 59.0 44.5 47.3 24.5 41.7 41.5 2.4 1.9 0.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 18.3 12.7 18.6 55.9 43.4 56.1 20.2 43.9 23.6 5.6 1.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Sept. 2007 Nov. 2007 Mar. 2008 22.3 13.4 15.6 52.2 53.2 54.8 24.9 33.0 29.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 Jun. 2008 17.8 48.3 33.0 0.9 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.0 65.5 22.6 1.0 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.2 51.4 37.0 0.5 100.0

SRU - EWS

Sept. 2008 13.1 54.8 32.1 100.0 Sept. 2008 19.9 63.7 15.6 0.8 100.0 Sept. 2008 17.5 59.7 22.2 0.6 100.0

Table IX How do you expect your family finances to change over the next year? (%)
BiH April 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept. 2006 Get worse 18.8 23.4 20.4 Stay the same 56.4 50.0 52.4 Get better 20.8 21.1 23.4 N.A. 4.1 5.5 3.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 FBH Mar. 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept.2006 Get worse 18.2 22.3 17.0 Stay the same 59.1 49.1 55.1 Get better 17.8 20.7 23.4 N.A. 4.8 7.9 4.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 RS Mar. 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept.2006 Get worse 17.6 25.5 25.4 Stay the same 53.3 50.9 48.6 Get better 26.2 21.5 23.5 N.A. 2.9 2.2 2.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 DB Mar. 2006 Jun. 2006 Sept.2006 Get worse 54.4 16.2 21.4 Stay the same 37.7 57.5 50.4 Get better 2.4 25.7 20.7 N.A. 5.5 0.7 7.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research Dec. 2006 15.9 52.0 29.4 2.7 100.0 Dec. 2006 18.0 51.8 26.8 3.5 100.0 Dec. 2006 11.9 52.5 34.0 1.5 100.0 Dec. 2006 33.7 48.9 16.7 0.8 100.0 April 2007 12.2 56.5 24.3 7.0 100.0 April 2007 10.4 59.3 21.3 9.0 100.0 April 2007 14.3 52.5 28.8 4.4 100.0 April 2007 25.2 52.3 21.3 1.2 100.0 Sept. 2007 18.0 54.1 21.5 6.4 100.0 Sept. 2007 16.7 54.1 21.4 7.8 100.0 Sept. 2007 20.5 52.4 22.3 4.7 100.0 Sept. 2007 6.5 86.0 7.5 100.0 Nov. 2007 35.2 45.7 14.4 4.7 100.0 Nov. 2007 41.5 42.2 12.3 4.0 100.0 Nov. 2007 25.3 50.9 17.7 6.1 100.0 Nov. 2007 46.1 46.0 7.9 100.0 Mar. 2008 20.2 56.2 20.0 3.6 100.0 Mar. 2008 19.0 59.9 17.5 3.5 100.0 Mar. 2008 20.7 51.0 24.4 3.9 100.0 Mar. 2008 41.3 50.7 8.0 100.0 Jun. 2008 22.5 56.1 17.2 4.3 100.0 Jun. 2008 21.1 56.6 16.8 5.5 100.0 Jun. 2008 23.6 55.5 18.3 2.6 100.0 Jun. 2008 39.4 51.1 4.6 4.8 100.0 Sept. 2008 16.1 62.0 17.2 4.7 100.0 Sept. 2008 16.4 66.2 13.3 4.1 100.0 Sept. 2008 15.3 55.0 23.8 6.0 100.0 Sept. 2008 24.2 75.8

100.0

Table X Expect prices over the next six months to...I? (%)
Bosnia and Herzegovina Fall significantly Fall modestly Rise modestly Rise significantly No Change N.A. Total Total fall Total rise No Change NZ/BO Total 100.0 5.0 54.7 33.7 6.7 100.0 Sep 2006 1.1 3.9 37.8 16.9 33.7 6.7 100.0 6.8 62.8 25.5 4.9 100.0 Dec 2006 0.8 6.0 42.3 20.5 25.5 4.9 100.0 2.2 60.2 26.0 11.6 100.0 April 2007 0.2 2.0 37.8 22.4 26.0 11.6 100.0 4.1 87.6 2.9 5.4 100.0 Sep 2007 0.5 3.6 37.1 50.6 2.9 5.4 100.0 6.7 87.5 3.8 1.9 100.0 Nov. 2007 1.4 5.4 22.3 65.2 3.8 1.9 100.0 4.7 83.8 7.9 3.6 100.0 Mar. 2008 0.7 4.0 35.2 48.6 7.9 3.6 100.0 2.5 81.1 11.5 4.9 100.0 Jun. 2008 0.6 1.8 29.7 51.4 11.5 4.9 100.0 9.8 71.8 13.1 5.2 100.0 Sep. 2008 2.2 7.6 33.4 38.4 13.1 5.2

23

EWS - Q3
Table XI Expect household income over the next six months to...? (%)
BiH Sep 2006 Dec 2006 Fall significantly 4.9 3.1 Fall modestly 9.5 10.3 Rise modestly 15.8 19.8 Fall modestly 2.5 1.7 No change 59.7 59.2 DK/NA 7.5 6.0 Total 100.0 100.0 Total fall 14.4 13.3 Total rise 18.3 21.5 No change 59.7 59.2 DK/NA 7.5 6.0 Total 100.0 100.0 FBiH Sep 2006 Dec 2006 Fall significantly 5.9 3.2 Fall modestly 8.5 12.3 Rise modestly 15.0 18.0 Fall modestly 2.8 1.0 No change 60.2 58.0 DK/NA 7.6 7.5 Total 100.0 100.0 Total fall 14.4 15.5 Total rise 17.8 19.0 No change 60.2 58.0 DK/NA 7.6 7.5 Total 100.0 100.0 REPUBLIKA SRPSKA Sep 2006 Dec 2006 Fall significantly 3.3 2.7 Fall modestly 11.2 7.3 Rise modestly 17.4 22.8 Fall modestly 2.3 2.9 No change 58.1 60.2 DK/NA 7.6 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Total fall 14.6 10.0 Total rise 19.8 25.7 No change 58.1 60.2 DK/NA 7.6 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 BR^KO Sep 2006 Dec 2006 Fall significantly 8.4 6.7 Fall modestly 3.4 8.7 Rise modestly 5.6 11.9 Fall modestly No change 78.5 72.7 DK/NA 4.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Total fall 11.8 15.4 Total rise 5.6 11.9 No change 78.5 72.7 DK/NA 4.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research April 2007 1.8 8.7 18.1 3.9 55.6 12.0 100.0 10.4 22.0 55.6 12.0 100.0 April 2007 2.4 8.6 16.0 4.2 52.9 15.9 100.0 11.0 20.2 52.9 15.9 100.0 April 2007 0.8 9.3 22.1 3.2 58.0 6.6 100.0 10.1 25.2 58.0 6.6 100.0 April 2007 0.8 4.6 8.4 82.8 3.4 100.0 0.8 13.0 82.8 3.4 100.0 Sep 2007 2.3 9.7 19.5 4.3 54.0 10.3 100.0 12.0 23.8 54.0 10.3 100.0 Sep 2007 2.2 9.5 18.8 4.2 50.2 15.0 100.0 11.7 23.1 50.2 15.0 100.0 Sep 2007 2.5 10.6 20.8 4.1 58.2 3.8 100.0 13.1 24.9 58.2 3.8 100.0 Sep 2007 Nov. 2007 7.1 9.8 15.1 2.8 58.0 7.3 100.0 16.9 17.9 58.0 7.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 8.3 10.7 13.1 3.2 56.6 8.2 100.0 19.0 16.2 56.6 8.2 100.0 Nov. 2007 5.4 9.0 18.2 2.3 58.7 6.3 100.0 14.4 20.5 58.7 6.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 4.6 13.9 81.5 100.0 4.6 13.9 81.5 100.0 Mar. 2008 6.2 6.2 17.6 3.8 60.0 6.2 100.0 12.4 21.4 60.0 6.2 100.0 Mar. 2008 5.8 5.2 16.6 3.8 61.1 7.4 100.0 11.1 20.4 61.1 7.4 100.0 Mar. 2008 6.5 7.9 19.7 3.5 57.9 4.5 100.0 14.4 23.2 57.9 4.5 100.0 Mar. 2008 11.4 1.2 8.2 7.9 67.4 3.9 100.0 12.6 16.1 67.4 3.9 100.0 Jun. 2008 3.8 7.3 15.0 3.5 63.0 7.3 100.0 11.1 18.5 63.0 7.3 100.0 Jun. 2008 2.8 5.6 12.5 4.2 66.7 8.2 100.0 8.5 16.6 66.7 8.2 100.0 Jun. 2008 5.2 9.6 19.5 2.7 56.5 6.4 100.0 14.8 22.2 56.5 6.4 100.0 Jun. 2008 4.1 10.3 3.1 82.5 100.0 14.4 3.1 82.5 100.0 Sept. 2008 4.0 9.2 19.1 3.7 58.0 6.0 100.0 13.2 22.8 58.0 6.0 100.0 Sept. 2008 4.4 9.0 16.6 4.4 58.7 6.8 100.0 13.4 21.1 58.7 6.8 100.0 Sept. 2008 3.4 9.9 23.7 2.8 55.0 5.2 100.0 13.3 26.5 55.0 5.2 100.0 Sept. 2008 0.7 4.4 0.5 94.4 100.0 5.1 0.5 94.4 100.0

ANNEX

11.7 10.8 77.5 100.0 22.5 77.5 100.0

24

ANNEX
Table XII Do you expect to be able to save money over the coming year?
BIH Dec 2006 April 2007 % % Yes 15.0 11.5 No 80.6 82.5 DK 4.4 6.0 Total 100.0 100.0 FBIH Dec 2006 April 2007 Yes 14.5 10.0 No 80.0 82.5 DK 5.5 7.5 Total 100.0 100.0 RS Dec 2006 April 2007 Yes 16.5 14.3 No 80.5 81.7 DK 3.0 4.0 Total 100.0 100.0 DB Dec 2006 April 2007 Yes 1.5 No 96.9 96.6 DK 1.6 3.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by PRISM Research Sep 2006 % 9.1 82.2 8.8 100.0 Sep 2006 11.1 78.3 10.6 100.0 Sep 2006 5.8 87.6 6.6 100.0 Sep 2006 15.2 84.8 Sep 2007 % 13.6 80.4 6.0 100.0 Sep 2007 14.9 78.2 6.9 100.0 Sep 2007 12.4 82.7 4.9 100.0 Sep 2007 100.0 100.0 Nov. 2007 % 12.1 84.0 4.0 100.0 Nov. 2007 11.9 82.7 5.3 100.0 Nov. 2007 12.8 85.1 2.2 100.0 Nov. 2007 3.9 96.1 100.0 Mar. 2008 % 11.8 83.3 4.9 100.0 Mar. 2008 11.2 85.6 3.2 100.0 Mar. 2008 12.7 79.8 7.4 100.0 Mar. 2008 8.1 87.8 4.1 100.0 Jun. 2008 % 9.6 83.8 6.5 100.0 Jun. 2008 11.3 81.2 7.5 100.0 Jun. 2008 6.9 87.7 5.4 100.0 Jun. 2008 15.1 82.7 2.2 100.0

SRU - EWS

Sept. 2008 % 8.0 85.3 6.6 100.0 Sept. 2008 7.1 85.0 7.9 100.0 Sept. 2008 9.7 85.4 4.9 100.0 Sept. 2008 2.1 94.7 3.3 100.0

Table XIII How much does the current institutional framework in BiH (how public administration is organized and functions) affect your activities with regard to ...? (%)
I 2008 Money More than it should Less than it might DK Total Time More than it should Less than it might DK Total 51.9 22.6 25.4 100.0 50.2 23.1 26.6 100.0 BiH Jun. 08 Sept. '08 54.4 22.3 23.4 100.0 53.2 22.5 24.3 100.0 50.0 29.0 21.0 100.0 47.3 31.2 21.6 100.0 I 2008 51.0 22.4 26.7 100.0 49.0 22.4 28.6 100.0 FBiH Jun. 08 Sept. '08 46.6 25.8 27.5 100.0 46.2 25.9 27.9 100.0 50.8 28.4 20.7 100.0 47.9 30.8 21.3 100.0 RS I 2008 Jun. 08 Sept. '08 54.1 21.5 24.4 100.0 53.3 22.0 24.7 100.0 67.3 16.2 16.5 100.0 64.9 16.6 18.5 100.0 46.6 30.9 22.5 100.0 44.0 32.9 23.0 100.0 D Brcko I 2008 Jun. 08 Sept. '08 37.8 51.5 10.7 100.0 25.7 63.5 10.7 100.0 24.7 37.5 37.8 100.0 27.3 37.5 35.2 100.0 91.2 8.8 100.0 91.4 8.6 100.0

25

EWS - Q3
Table XIV How good do you think the following institutions are at their job? (%)
BiH III 2008 VI 08 IX '08 FBiH III 2008VI 08 IX '08 RS III 2008 VI 08 IX '08 44.3 40.4 48.6 28.5 29.1 27.6 27.2 30.5 23.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 41.6 35.7 48.2 36.1 37.0 32.4 22.2 27.2 19.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.4 33.5 47.2 36.7 41.0 33.6 20.9 25.5 19.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 36.7 30.5 40.6 46.0 47.2 44.1 17.3 22.2 15.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 32.5 38.0 40.6 34.7 27.4 36.2 32.7 34.6 23.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 34.6 34.6 35.9 31.1 26.1 35.7 34.2 39.4 28.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 31.4 17.7 25.1 52.6 57.5 56.9 16.0 24.8 18.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 25.5 61.8 12.6 14.6 67.6 17.8 22.6 63.7 13.7 D Brcko III 2008 VI 08 IX '08 90.3 53.5 73.2 9.7 41.6 24.1 4.8 2.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 77.2 32.0 37.1 17.9 63.1 60.1 4.9 4.8 2.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 55.3 41.7 33.9 44.7 55.9 64.1 2.4 2.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 64.7 49.4 27.6 35.3 48.2 72.4 2.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.2 36.6 20.3 32.9 60.5 79.7 0.8 2.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.1 37.7 27.2 25.1 56.8 72.2 0.8 5.5 0.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.7 30.7 11.1 19.7 62.0 88.9 5.6 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 10.1 89.1 0.8 16.0 81.6 2.4 10.4 89.6

ANNEX

Central Bank of BiH Good 48.2 47.8 50.4 49.2 52.7 50.8 Bad 25.1 26.2 26.3 23.3 23.7 25.6 DK 26.7 25.9 23.2 27.4 23.6 23.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Indirect Taxation Authority Good 39.4 39.8 39.6 36.5 42.9 33.8 Bad 35.6 36.1 38.7 35.9 34.5 42.3 DK 25.0 24.1 21.7 27.6 22.7 24.0 Total Good 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Entity Tax Administrations Bad 37.7 36.9 37.3 33.8 39.0 30.6 DK 39.4 39.6 42.3 41.0 38.1 47.4 Good 23.0 23.5 20.4 25.2 22.9 22.0 Total Bad 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Judicial System DK 32.5 33.9 32.4 28.5 35.6 27.0 Good 47.5 45.2 50.2 48.9 43.8 53.5 Bad 20.0 20.9 17.4 22.5 20.6 19.5 Total DK 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Directorate for European Integration Good 33.0 39.3 33.7 32.1 40.3 29.5 Bad 36.2 32.0 41.2 37.3 34.0 43.2 DK 30.8 28.7 25.1 30.5 25.7 27.3 Total Good 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Foreign Investment Promotion Agency Bad 33.8 36.1 31.9 31.8 37.1 29.3 DK 33.7 32.9 39.3 35.7 36.8 40.5 Good 32.5 30.9 28.8 32.5 26.1 30.1 Total Bad 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Privatisation Agency DK 26.9 22.9 22.2 22.1 26.1 20.6 Good 52.8 53.3 59.0 54.1 50.1 59.3 Bad 20.4 23.9 18.9 23.9 23.8 20.1 Total DK 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Employment Bureaux Good 20.2 19.0 17.4 17.0 22.1 14.1 Bad 64.0 63.0 66.9 64.6 59.2 68.2 DK 15.7 18.0 15.7 18.4 18.7 17.6 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 III '08 VI '08 IX '08 FBiH III '08 VI '08 IX '08 RS VI '08 IX '08 23.2 73.5 3.2 22.0 74.2 3.8 17.9 77.8 4.2 19.6 75.8 4.6 D Brcko VI '08 IX '08 31.1 55.0 13.9 28.6 57.5 13.9 27.9 72.1

III '08 23.4 70.5 6.1 15.3 77.1 7.6

III '08 23.9 63.3 12.8 24.8 62.4 12.8

Informal connections and contacts Very much 25.4 23.5 20.2 26.8 23.3 21.4 Not much 64.8 65.7 71.1 61.0 60.7 66.4 DK 9.8 10.9 8.7 12.2 16.0 12.2 So-called informal rules Very much 21.6 22.4 18.0 25.7 22.5 16.6 Not much 67.5 66.2 72.6 61.1 61.0 70.3 DK 11.0 11.4 9.4 13.2 16.4 13.0 Source: public opinion polls conducted for UNDP EWS project by Prism Research

25.2 74.8

26

ANNEX
Table XVI

SRU - EWS

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
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 % % % % 0 - 5% 8.3 8.6 11.4 8.5 5 - 10% 16.5 18.6 7.4 27.6 10 - 20% 21.6 22.5 18.1 14.4 20 - 30% 16.0 13.7 16.9 15.8 30 - 40% 2.2 5.2 13.0 10.9 40 - 50% 3.3 5.6 6.7 4.2 > 50% 3.4 4.9 2.8 5.7 10-30 % 37.6 36.2 35.0 30.1 DK 28.7 20.9 23.7 12.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 % % 12.9 12.5 16.6 23.6 15.3 13.3 13.3 10.2 4.7 4.2 7.5 1.4 9.7 3.7 28.6 23.5 20.0 31.1 100.0 100.0 Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. 2008 % % 36.9 30.2 13.4 23.1 16.0 19.3 1.4 14.3 9.9 3.8 0.6 1.3 7.7 17.3 33.7 20.6 1.6 100.0 100.0

Table XVII 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
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % % % 0 - 5% 8.2 10.0 11.2 7.9 5 - 10% 17.9 24.8 7.1 23.0 10 - 20% 16.0 25.9 16.3 15.9 20 - 30% 16.8 9.7 19.6 16.7 30 - 40% 2.1 1.9 12.6 11.3 40 - 50% 2.1 1.6 5.4 4.7 > 50% 3.9 3.5 3.1 3.0 10-30 % 32.9 35.5 35.9 32.6 DK 32.8 22.7 24.7 17.4 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % 16.9 13.8 12.8 21.5 12.8 16.6 10.7 8.9 12.1 3.5 5.0 1.9 6.3 3.1 23.5 25.5 23.4 30.8 100.0 100.0 Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % 42.1 19.9 7.9 30.3 16.9 22.9 1.1 13.5 7.9 4.1 0.0 2.1 1.3 5.6 18.0 36.4 22.8 1.6 100.0 100.0

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?
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % % % Significantly more efficient 2.4 0.1 1.2 Somewhat more efficient 19.2 14.1 16.5 8.8 Unchanged 36.8 48.2 64.1 59.0 Somewhat less efficient 17.5 18.4 9.7 12.0 Significantly less efficient 6.7 5.4 3.1 2.2 DK 17.4 13.9 6.6 16.9 TOTAL 100 100.0 100 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % 1.6 5.0 33.3 29.5 50.2 47.9 6.3 8.5 1.2 0.9 7.3 8.2 100 100.0 Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % 2.2 9.0 1.4 52.3 63.3 30.2 35.3 6.3 100 100.0

27

EWS - Q3
Table XIX

ANNEX

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'?
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % % % Strongly agree 11.6 8.0 11.7 7.6 Basically agree 42.7 38.6 20.2 25.9 Basically disagree 6.3 15.3 20.5 13.6 Strongly disagree 17.7 21.0 33.8 31.0 DK 21.7 17.1 13.7 21.9 TOTAL 100 100.0 100 100.0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Serb majority areas Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % 14.4 4.0 51.6 51.1 8.3 9.1 14.4 18.8 11.3 17.0 100 100.0 Distrikt Brcko Jun. 2008 Sept. '08 % % 23.2 16.4 34.9 23.6 9.4 20.9 16.4 39.1 16.0 100 100.0

28

ANNEX

SRU - EWS

THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT

Table I Compared to twelve months ago, the economic situation in BiH now is ?
Better The same Worse (%) (%) (%) Feb-05 4 31 66 Jun-05 4 39 57 Sep-05 2 42 56 Dec-05 5 51 44 Mar-06 7 41 53 Jun-06 7 39 54 Sep-06 17 38 45 Dec-06 13 40 47 Apr-07 16 51 33 Sep-07 22 34 43 Dec-07 9 29 62 Mar-08 12 35 53 Aug-08 9 35 55 Sep-08 12 35 53 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table III Exploitation of capacity

Above % Bosnia and Herzegovina Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 FBiH Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 RS Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Prism Research 2 31 5 7 7 9 6 9 8 10 10 5 3 32 4 7 8 11 6 11 8 12 10 4 At % 42 39 51 57 47 42 49 53 42 43 43 56 46 42 50 59 49 42 51 54 47 42 46 61 Below % 56 29 43 35 46 48 45 38 51 48 47 39 51 25 45 34 43 45 43 35 45 46 44 35

Table II In your opinion, the economic situation in BiH in six months time will be?
Better The same Worse (%) (%) (%) Feb-05 12 46 42 Jun-05 11 52 36 Sep-05 8 48 44 Dec-05 10 36 54 Mar-06 15 52 33 Jun-06 13 60 26 Sep-06 16 62 21 Dec-06 19 54 25 Apr-07 21 55 23 Sep-07 21 52 24 Dec-07 18 29 62 Mar-08 17 47 36 Aug-08 15 58 26 Sep-08 11 52 37 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

35 65 29 32 39 7 54 39 13 38 50 38 62 42 58 6 44 50 29 48 35 6 24 71 3 45 52 10 21 47 9 36 55 Business to Business Survey, conducted by

29

EWS - Q3
Table IV With regard to your companys overall operations, how would you characterize your financial status compared to the same period last year?
Better The same Worse (%) (%) (%) June 2005 23 43 34 Sep. 2005 20 49 31 Dec. 2005 31 39 29 March 2006 19 43 38 June 2006 35 34 28 Sep. 2006 36 38 26 Dec. 2006 38 36 26 April 2007 43 36 21 Sep. 2007 62 24 14 Dec. 2007 46 34 20 March 2008 50 32 17 Aug. 2008 35 41 24 Sep. 2008 28 46 26 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

ANNEX
Table V You expect that your company's financial results in the next six months time will be (%)
Better Bosnia and Herzegovina Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 FBiH Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 RS Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 30 25 39 55 45 49 60 55 33 50 45 31 28 25 39 53 40 43 55 54 27 49 46 31 35 23 39 75 71 74 78 58 17 52 41 27 The same 52 45 42 30 39 36 34 36 39 36 46 48 57 42 40 32 44 40 41 38 47 32 46 47 43 52 46 13 19 16 11 29 12 45 48 55 Worse B.O. 17 31 19 15 15 15 6 8 28 14 9 21 16 33 21 15 17 17 4 7 26 18 9 22 20 26 14 13 10 5 11 10 35 3 10 18

Table VI How would you compare your company's level of debt to the same period last year?
Higher (%) IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08VIII '08IX '08 BiH FBiH RS 28 29 22 23 24 19 39 42 29 26 27 24 23 25 17 34 31 41 The same (%) IV' 07IX '07XII '07III '08VIII '08 IX '08 46 35 42 31 62 48 34 34 35 46 43 52 47 47 48 42 43 41 Less (%) IV' 07IX '07XII '07III '08VIII '08IX '08 25 31 28 33 17 23 25 27 24 28 29 24 20 20 21 24 26 18 N.A. (%) IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08IX '08 1 1 0 11 12 10 1 0 6 1 1 10 9 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 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Sep-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Profit 72 65 76 77 79 81 79 79 77 78 72 63 Loss 28 33 24 23 21 19 18 16 20 18 26 26

30

ANNEX
Table VIIIa To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH:
Very helpful
IX XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 IX XII IV' 07

SRU - EWS

Generally helpful
IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 IX

Neither helpful nor unhelpful

XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08

State 1 1 1 1 8 10 7 7 5 Entity 2 3 2 1 2 11 9 9 11 14 Canton 1 2 1 1 9 10 13 8 9 Municipality 3 3 3 1 3 9 14 22 11 15 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

10 8 10 14

7 12 9 16

11 16 22 16

21 19 21 25

22 21 21 25

31 31 30 28

31 32 29 33

27 25 23 25

26 19 28 28

25 22 21 20

29 26 19 20

Table VIIIb To what degree do the various levels of government assist business overcome problems in BiH:
Generally unhelpful
IX XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08VIII '08IX '08 IX

Not at all helpful

XII IV' 07 IX XII III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 IX XII IV' 07 IX

Cannot judge
XII III '08VIII '08 IX '08 IX XII IV' 07 IX

N.A.
XII III '08VIII '08IX '08

State 31 28 20 14 24 Entity 31 31 15 15 27 Canton 26 23 9 11 22 Municipal. 23 20 8 16 15 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150

17 19 22 21 15 22 38 30 28 32 19 2 17 26 21 15 13 21 34 23 29 24 19 3 14 20 22 15 14 22 34 24 28 26 19 2 10 14 23 16 15 22 30 28 29 30 23 4 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

3 4 3 4

6 6 3 3

5 2 3 3

3 0 1 0

3 2 2 3

5 6 5 4

15 15 23 15

6 11 13 13 5 9 14 13 14 22 18 21 5 14 15 16

Table IX To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations:

Very Somewhat Little III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 Customs procedures 23 19 21 23 33 46 23 13 17 High taxes 52 50 39 19 24 33 12 10 17 Unfair competition 46 48 34 24 29 26 15 9 25 Corruption 36 46 37 21 16 25 13 9 20 The performance of the courts 45 47 43 20 21 22 15 11 20 Political instability 44 36 26 27 32 39 10 10 23 Labour market regulation 21 14 24 23 27 31 25 27 27 Tax administration 25 23 20 27 32 34 19 20 29 Procedures for issuing work permits 37 39 36 30 30 29 8 9 20 Environmental regulations 21 17 17 25 28 35 21 21 30 Safety regulations and standards 16 16 11 29 20 28 21 32 36 Lack of qualified staff 18 19 17 25 24 34 16 20 25 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research Not at all III '08 VIII '8 IX '08 20 13 12 11 6 6 9 4 7 9 4 5 7 7 5 10 8 3 23 14 11 20 10 9 15 9 7 21 16 9 22 16 13 25 16 16 N.A. VIII '8 IX '08 21 10 10 26 14 14 18 14 13 19 17 21

III '08 10 6 7 21 14 10 7 8 11 11 12 15

31

EWS - Q3
Table X To what extent do the following represent an obstacle to successful operations:
Very well Fairly well IV' 07 IX IX '08 IV' 07 IX IX '08 Central Bank of BiH 34 45 24 34 37 43 Indirect Tax Authority 23 28 15 54 49 47 Entity Tax Administrations 14 20 11 49 47 46 The Judicial System 5 7 4 37 29 18 European Integration Directorate 3 5 7 33 28 22 FIPA 2 7 4 31 20 29 Privatisation Agency 7 8 1 29 24 20 Banking Agency 10 13 7 41 39 28 Employment Bureaus 2 11 3 43 30 31 Foreign-Trade Chamber 2 14 7 44 37 28 Entity Chambers of Commerce 5 13 9 46 35 28 Social Funds 2 7 20 26 16 9 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research Fairly poorly IV' 07 IX IX '08 3 3 7 10 8 23 16 13 25 13 22 39 8 9 26 8 11 18 14 21 28 7 7 29 15 14 34 13 13 32 17 18 31 11 7 33 Very poorly IV' 07 IX IX '08 3 0 6 5 5 8 7 7 13 34 33 30 8 9 11 18 18 20 23 22 25 6 7 8 14 20 16 10 14 20 10 12 20 8 19 33

ANNEX

IV' 07 24 8 14 11 47 40 28 36 26 31 22 52

N.A. IX IX '08 14 20 10 7 13 5 9 9 49 34 43 29 26 26 34 28 26 16 22 13 22 12 51 23

Table XI To what extent do you use in your everyday operationsinformal collections and contacts, e.g. family, friends, colleagues...?
IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 Very Much 3 9 9 3 8 9 Somewhat 20 18 28 28 26 31 Little 30 31 29 32 31 32 Not All 33 36 25 29 22 19 No Answer 14 7 9 8 13 8 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XII To what extent do you use in your everyday operations ''unwritten rules'', including customs, business practices, codes of behaviour, etc.?
IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 Very Much 8 15 14 7 4 8 Somewhat 21 28 28 38 26 39 Little 33 28 34 24 29 33 Not All 22 20 15 19 21 11 No Answer 16 9 9 12 20 8 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XIII To what extent do you use in your everyday operationsinformal collections and contacts, e.g. family, friends, colleagues...?
IV' 07 IX '07 XII '07 III '08 VIII '08 IX '08 Much more than necessary 25 36 42 32 42 39 Somewhat more than necessary 28 22 24 24 24 31 About right 7 7 5 14 10 11 Somewhat less than necessary 7 5 6 7 2 3 Significantly less than necessary 7 9 4 6 3 4 No answer 26 22 19 17 18 12 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

Table XIV How much does the current institutional framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina, i.e. the way in which public administration is organised and functions, 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 Much more than necessary 33 38 37 36 42 44 Somewhat more than necessary 18 17 30 26 21 19 About right 10 9 6 7 9 16 Somewhat less than necessary 6 4 4 6 5 Significantly less than necessary 5 6 4 5 4 4 No answer 28 26 19 20 3 12 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

32

ANNEX
Table XV Looking at institutions in BiH, can you estimate how much higher your total costs are because of direct cash payments made to government
III '08 IX '08 III '08 BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS 0-5 % 12 9 17 13 13 14 5-10 % 20 22 17 29 35 9 10-20 % 25 27 21 22 20 32 20-30 % 8 5 14 13 14 5 30-40 % 4 4 3 5 4 3 40-50 % 4 5 0 1 5 50-60 % 3 3 3 3 4 > 60 % 1 1 0 1 1 n.a. 23 23 24 13 9 27 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

SRU - EWS
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 BIH FBIH RS BIH FBIH RS 0-5 % 19 19 21 10 13 5-10 % 22 23 21 27 27 23 10-20 % 17 14 24 26 33 5 20-30 % 7 8 3 9 7 18 30-40 % 2 3 0 4 4 5 40-50 % 1 1 0 7 4 18 50-60 % 6 5 7 1 1 > 60 % 3 4 0 3 1 9 n.a. 23 23 24 13 10 23 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

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 III '08 III '08 IX '08 IX '08 14 7 12 9 18 21 14 13 37 34 42 43 13 22 21 25 6 3 1 1 13 13 10 9 101 100 State level Entity level State level Entity level FBiH III '08 III '08 IX '08 IX '08 Significantly deteriorated 12 5 13 9 Moderately deteriorated 20 22 17 14 The same 36 35 42 44 Moderately improved 14 23 17 22 Significantly improved 7 3 Don't know 11 12 12 10 100 100 State level Entity level State level Entity level RS III '08 III '08 IX '08 IX '08 Significantly deteriorated 17 10 9 9 Moderately deteriorated 14 21 5 9 The same 38 31 41 36 Moderately improved 10 21 36 36 Significantly improved 3 3 5 5 Don't know 17 14 5 5 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research BIH Significantly deteriorated Moderately deteriorated The same Moderately improved Significantly improved Don't know

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 Strongly disagree Basically disagree Neither agree nor disagree Basically agree Strongly agree NA III '08 21 14 40 17 7 2 101 III '08 16 16 43 16 7 1 99 IX '08 25 17 37 15 6 100 IX '08 26 14 40 14 5 99

FBIH Strongly disagree Basically disagree Neither agree nor disagree Basically agree Strongly agree NA

RS Strongly disagree Basically disagree Neither agree nor disagree Basically agree Strongly agree NA

III '08 IX '08 34 18 7 27 31 27 17 18 7 9 3 99 99 Source: UNDP EWS BiH Top 150 Business to Business Survey, conducted by Prism Research

33

EWS - Q3

ANNEX

INCOME AND SOCIAL WELFARE

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 Mar. 08. Jun. 08. No income 2.2 < 100 KM 2.1 3.5 101 - 200 7.8 1.1 201 - 300 8.7 16.7 301 - 400 8.5 14.7 401 - 500 8.5 12.1 501 - 600 6.6 7.8 601 - 700 6.3 6.0 701 - 800 8.2 5.0 801 - 900 3.9 4.6 901 - 1000 2.4 1.4 1001 - 1100 5.3 0.5 1101 - 1200 1.3 0.2 1201 - 1300 3.2 0.4 1301 - 1400 0.7 1401 - 1500 1.5 1501 - 1600 1.4 1601 - 1700 0.9 1701 - 1800 0.4 1801-1900 0.2 1901 - 2000 0.0 > 2000 KM/DM 1.4 NA 18.4 25.8 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research RS Jun. 08. 7.6 5.6 12.6 9.8 11.4 8.8 8.1 4.3 2.5 2.4 1.6 0.3 0.5 Br~ko District Jun. 08. Sept 08. 4.3 17.1 7.9 6.9 13.6 25.4 38.4 8.6 19.0 9.0 3.8 2.9 4.0 7.3 4.1 2.2 0.5

Sept 08. 1.0 1.0 2.2 15.4 15.8 11.7 9.5 6.7 5.5 5.9 3.3 0.9 0.1 0.2

0.3

20.4 100.0

Mar. 08. 4.3 5.2 9.8 9.3 9.9 9.9 6.7 4.5 3.5 3.7 3.1 3.8 1.4 2.1 2.1 2.2 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 13.8 100.0

Sept 08. 0.8 5.6 6.7 15.4 17.7 13.2 6.7 4.6 2.3 2.7 1.6 0.3 0.3

Mar. 08. 5.6 24.1 30.2 6.8 11.1 8.1 4.1

0.8

24.6 100.0

22.1 100.0

9.2 100.0

20.8 100.0

4.4 100.0

34

ANNEX
Table Ib

SRU - EWS

Monthly household income, including all wages and income of all household members, child allowance, pension and all other sources of income (in %)
FBiH Mar. 08. Jun. 08. No income 2.2 < 100 KM 2.1 3.5 101 - 200 7.8 1.1 201 - 300 8.7 16.7 301 - 400 8.5 14.7 401 - 500 8.5 12.1 SUBTOTAL to 500 37.9 48.2 1501 - 1600 1.4 1601 - 1700 0.9 1701 - 1800 0.4 1801-1900 0.2 1901 - 2000 0.0 More than 2000 KM/DM 1.4 SUBTOTAL >1500 4.3 0.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research RS Jun. 08. 7.6 5.6 12.6 9.8 11.4 47.0 Br~ko District Jun. 08. Sept 08. 4.3 17.1 7.9 6.9 13.6 25.4 38.4 8.6 19.0 9.0 3.8 66.9 86.9

Sept 08. 1.0 1.0 2.2 15.4 15.8 11.7 47.1 0.3

0.3

Mar. 08. 4.3 5.2 9.8 9.3 9.9 9.9 48.3 0.8 0.7 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.8 4.8

Sept 08. 0.8 5.6 6.7 15.4 17.7 13.2 59.4

Mar. 08. 5.6 24.1 30.2 6.8 11.1 77.8

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 %)
Income in KM Bosniak majority areas Quarter Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. No income 2.7 0.7 < 100 1.6 3.9 1.3 101 - 200 8.3 1.3 2.0 201 - 300 9.6 19.0 17.2 301 - 400 9.2 17.3 18.8 401 - 500 9.8 14.0 12.2 Subtotal to 500 41.3 55.5 52.3 Quarter Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. No income 3.7 2.0 < 100 6.9 1.4 2.0 101 - 200 17.6 0.6 2.0 201 - 300 6.8 21.3 15.4 301 - 400 9.7 24.5 24.5 401 - 500 11.4 9.0 10.6 Subtotal to 500 56.2 56.9 56.5 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 0.5 2.1 3.9 2.1 0.1 6.0 0.7 2.8 5.6 8.6 8.8 6.0 5.8 5.1 4.0 5.2 10.1 25.9 22.4 29.1 Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.8 5.0 1.8 1.9 4.2 22.5 11.4 5.6 27.2 10.8 6.0 10.3 14.4 22.1 63.5 39.3 Serb majority areas Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 4.3 0.8 5.2 7.6 5.6 9.8 5.6 6.7 9.3 12.6 15.4 9.9 9.8 17.7 9.9 11.4 13.2 48.3 47.0 59.4 Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 10.1 0.9 9.6 9.0 5.2 7.7 11.1 11.8 23.2 27.3 25.9 8.2 8.7 16.8 8.5 4.6 9.5 67.3 60.7 70.1

35

EWS - Q3
Table III

ANNEX

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
No income < 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 SUBTOTAL TO 500 1.8 2.2 13.4 12.5 12.8 42.7

Urban
Jun. 08. 0.1 1.5 3.0 10.9 14.7 12.0 42.1 8.1 3.6 16.7 12.7 10.9 52.1

Rural
1.7 4.2 5.2 19.6 18.0 12.3 60.9 6.1 2.2 12.2 15.7 11.3 47.5

Male
1.6 1.9 4.2 16.5 16.1 11.5 51.9 4.8 3.8 18.2 9.7 12.2 48.7

Female
0.4 4.0 4.3 15.2 17.1 12.8 53.8 4.1 0.6 4.5 11.1 12.3 32.6

18-35
0.1 1.1 1.4 5.8 9.8 13.5 31.7 3.4 2.3 7.9 6.6 15.6 35.8

36-50
Sept 08. Jun. 08. 2.0 3.4 7.6 17.6 14.8 45.4 7.6 5.4 28.2 17.6 9.6 68.4

51+
Sept 08. 2.4 5.4 7.4 30.2 22.6 9.4 77.3

Sept 08. Jun. 08.

Sept 08.Jun. 08.

Sept 08. Jun. 08.

Sept 08. Jun. 08.

Sept 08. Jun. 08.

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table IV Over past year, household economic status has (in %)?
BiH FBiH Jun. 08. 11.16 51.42 36.97 0.45 100.00 RS Sept 08. 17.52 59.69 22.17 0.61 100.00 Br~ko Distrikt Jun. 08. 6.58 37.75 55.67 100.00 Sept 08. 2.58 18.48 78.94 100.00 Bosniak maj. areas Sept 08. 13.1 54.8 32.1 100.0 Croat maj. areas Sept 08. 19.9 63.7 15.6 0.8 100.0 Serb maj. areas Sept 08. 17.5 59.7 22.2 0.6 100.0

Survey Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. TOTAL BETTER 14.04 15.51 16.27 14.61 STAY THE SAME 51.54 57.10 52.12 56.75 TOTAL WORSE 33.73 27.05 30.73 28.46 DK/NA 0.69 0.35 0.88 0.18 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table V Expect the economic situation over the next year to...(in %)
Bosniak majority areas Jun. 08. Sept 08. Deteriorate significantly 7.5 10.0 Deteriorate somewhat 27.3 32.8 Stay the same 44.8 41.4 Improve somewhat 9.5 7.5 Improve significantly 0.4 0.5 DK/NA 10.4 7.9 Total 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DETERIORATE 34.8 42.8 Stay the same 44.8 41.4 TOTAL IMPROVE 10.0 7.9 DK/NA 10.4 7.9 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Jun. 08. Sept 08. 25.9 1.5 45.6 13.0 7.4 69.5 6.5 9.7 14.5 100.0 71.5 7.4 6.5 14.5 100.0 6.3 100.0 14.5 69.5 9.7 6.3 100.0 Serb majority areas Jun. 08. Sept 08. 3.4 2.8 18.7 19.4 54.3 43.7 18.1 25.4 0.3 1.3 5.2 7.6 100.0 100.0 22.1 22.1 54.3 43.7 18.4 26.6 5.2 7.6 100.0 100.0

Table VI Expect further privatization to affect their household's economic status.

FBiH RS Br~ko Distrikt Jun. 08. Sept 08. 39.4 32.0 20.4 13.6 40.1 54.4 100.0 100.0 Bosniak majority areas Jun. 08. Sept 08. 52.7 59.0 13.6 11.2 33.8 29.8 100.0 100.0 Croat majority areas Jun. 08. Sept 08. 70.1 60.4 12.1 22.3 17.7 17.3 100.0 100.0 Serb majority areas Jun. 08. Sept 08. 49.6 58.0 12.4 13.7 38.1 28.3 100.0 100.0

Quarter Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. TOTAL NEGATIVE 56.5 59.3 49.6 58.0 TOTAL POSITIVE 13.2 13.6 12.4 13.7 DK/NA 30.2 27.1 38.1 28.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

36

ANNEX
Table VII What change do you expect in your household income, if any, over the next 6 months (%)?

SRU - EWS

FBiH RS BMA CMA SMA 18-35 36-50 51+ Quarter Jun. 08. Sept 08.Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. TOTAL FALL 8.47 13.42 14.84 13.32 9.3 13.0 5.4 15.0 14.8 13.3 9.9 12.6 13.1 11.9 11.3 14.5 TOTAL RISE 16.62 21.05 22.20 26.50 14.9 16.8 22.9 35.9 22.2 26.5 18.7 27.5 19.9 24.2 18.2 17.4 NO CHANGE 66.72 58.74 56.52 54.99 66.1 62.8 69.0 44.6 56.5 55.0 66.8 53.1 64.0 57.9 59.2 62.8 DK/NA 8.19 6.80 6.44 5.19 9.7 7.5 2.8 4.5 6.4 5.2 4.6 6.7 3.1 6.0 11.3 5.3 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 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VIII Will prices rise or fall over next six months (%)
FBiH Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. TOTAL FALL 3.93 2.40 6.24 TOTAL RISE 87.05 76.32 74.28 No change 5.13 15.01 13.70 DK/NA 3.89 6.27 5.78 TotaL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research RS Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 4.02 2.46 13.44 80.62 89.28 71.59 11.97 5.30 10.56 3.39 2.96 4.41 100.0 100.0 100.0 Br~ko Distrikt Jun. 08. Sept 08. 4.18 38.41 59.62 10.76 33.33 46.01 2.87 4.83 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mar. 08. 38.53 53.42 8.05

Graph I: Expect prices to rise during next six monts (%) November 2007, March 2008, June 2008, September 2008

Table IX Expect to be able to save over coming year (%)

FBiH RS Br~ko Distikt Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Yes 11.31 7.13 6.91 9.70 15.13 2.05 No 81.22 84.95 87.67 85.43 82.68 94.69 DK/NA 7.47 7.92 5.42 4.88 2.19 3.26 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research 18-35 Jun. 08. Sept 08. 14.89 12.98 80.46 78.56 4.65 8.46 100.00 100.00 36-50 Jun. 08. Sept 08. 10.27 8.35 82.17 83.95 7.55 7.70 100.00 100.00 51+ Jun. 08. 4.56 88.61 6.83 100.00 Sept 08. 3.1 92.6 4.2 100.0

37

EWS - Q3
Table X Think they might lose their job during next three months (%)
FBiH
Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08.

ANNEX

RS
Sept 08.

Br~ko District
Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08.

18-35
Sept 08. Jun. 08.

36-50
Sept 08. Jun. 08.

51+
Sept 08.

15.88 14.97 18.09 8.98 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

11.39

18.85

13.34

16.12

10.20

11.94

14.65

Table XI Would support public protests, strikes, and demonstrations regarding ( %)

FBiH Survey Job loss Inability to find a job Entity government policy Low salaries/pensions Discrimination/to protect ethnic and civil rights Behaviour of the international community Return of property 46.5 58.1 51.1 59.6 43.2 50.3 42.2 46.8 48.0 49.6 43.8 46.9 38.4 61.0 24.5 24.5 25.2 28.3 45.0 49.8 50.6 56.0 46.0 52.2 44.4 55.9 49.0 40.8 54.1 45.7 41.8 52.2 39.2 50.0 55.8 43.1 54.7 56.9 50.8 45.0 50.5 47.3 43.5 24.5 30.6 49.6 54.8 53.7 51.4 52.8 45.4 51.1 57.1 42.5 56.8 53.2 47.5 57.1 59.8 58.2 53.5 59.2 53.5 50.9 45.0 51.9 45.2 43.6 36.3 44.0 RS 48.0 46.8 44.3 50.3 45.6 44.8 40.2 45.4 Brko District 68.3 70.4 39.6 72.9 24.5 24.5 24.5 24.5 33.4 33.4 27.6 45.2 Urban 51.8 56.5 51.2 54.4 43.6 50.9 51.6 57.7 55.1 52.9 45.7 54.5 52.9 48.7 42.3 52.7 Rural 52.9 46.0 51.9 52.9 44.5 45.2 48.0 40.4 18-35 36-50 51+ 53.7 57.4 42.2

Mar. 08.Jun. 08.Sept 08. Mar. 08.Jun. 08. Sept 08. Mar. 08.Jun. 08.Sept 08. Mar. 08.Jun. 08.Sept 08.Mar. 08.Jun. 08.Sept 08. Sept 08.Sept 08.Sept 08.

50.5 55.9 41.5 43.6 50.0 37.8 50.9 54.5 44.5

Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Graph II: Percentages of sample who support protests regarding (June 08)

38

ANNEX
Graph III: Would emigrate if they could (%)

SRU - EWS

Table XIII Trends for average salaries and the Consumer Price Index for the RS and the FBiH (December 07. - August 08.)
RS 12/07 628.00 100.80 FBiH 12/07 696.74 Source: Entity Statistical Offices 01/08 709.84 101.26 02/08 713.20 100.42 03/08 723.66 100.91 04/08 735.11 99.74 05/08 751.82 100.91 06/08 740.60 100.95 07/08 763.51 100.11 08/07 99.60 Change 08/08 : 12/07 109.58 104,43* 01/08 584.00 101.50 02/08 724.00 100.30 03/08 731.00 100.90 04/08 751.00 99.30 05/08 758.00 100.80 06/08 768.00 100.90 07/08 765.00 100.00 08/07 762.00 100.20 Change 08/08 : 12/07 121.34 104.20

Graph IV: Average salary trends in FBiH and RS (December 07. - July 08.)

Graph V: Consumer Price Index trends (January to Aug 2008)

39

EWS - Q3
Graph VI: Data on pensions, RS and FBiH, January '08 and August '08 Table XV

ANNEX

Data on average salaries by sector, in the RS and the FBiH for December 2007 and July 2008.
Increase RS Increase FBiH Agriculture 4.67% 2.31% Fisheries 2.03% 2.93% Ore extraction and quarries 1.26% 0.67% Manufacturing 1.23% 1.93% Electricity, gas, and water generation and supply 0.95% 0.54% Construction 5.42% 3.39% The retail, wholesale, and repair or cars, bicycles, and articles for personal and household use -0.98% 1.94% Hotels and restaurants 4.30% -0.53% Transport and warehousing 2.37% 0.28% Financial mediation -0.08% 0.88% Property and renting 3.85% 2.78% Government administration, defence, and social security 0.78% 1.59% Education 1.57% -0.63% Healthcare and social welfare -8.01% 6.58% Other communal, public, or private services 1.03% 1.09% Total - average 0.92% 1.55% Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Graph VII: Average salaries by canton in 2008

Table XV Average household spending by item (as % of total) Table XIV Consumer price index (CPI) itemized (August 2008)
RS FBiH
VIII 2008 / VIII 2008 / VIII 2008/ VIII 2008 / VII 2008 VIIII 2007 VII 2008 VIIII 2007

Total 100.20 Food and non-alcoholic beverages 99.70 Alcohol and tobacco 100.40 Clothes and shoes 99.50 Accommodation, water and other utilities 102.80 Furniture, furnishings, and regular maintainance 100.90 Healthcare 100.20 Transport 99.10 Communications 100.00 Recreation and culture 100.00 Education 100.00 Restaurants and hotels 100.30 Other goods and services 100.20 Entity Statistics Offices

109.40 113.50 101.80 98.20 113.60 102.20 101.30 118.20 103.60 104.80 104.10 105.70 103.00

99.96 99.56 100.12 99.84 101.86 100.19 100.20 98.71 101.57 100.07 100.22 100.34 100.36

109.59 115.24 101.39 98.47 110.05 103.16 98.57 115.65 104.77 105.47 103.99 109.92 103.99

FBiH RS Quarter Mar. 08.Jun. 08.Sept 08.Mar. 08.Jun. 08.Sept 08. FOOD 32.9 28.2 32.9 30.5 30.6 29.1 CLOTHING/SHOES 5.5 5.3 6.7 5.7 6.0 7.7 TOBACCO 4.6 4.3 4.6 5.3 5.8 5.7 HYGIENE 6.3 6.3 6.7 6.1 7.0 6.5 FUEL AND CAR MAINTENANCE 6.1 5.8 5.3 6.1 6.8 6.1 PUBLIC TRANSPORT 2.3 2.3 2.9 1.5 2.6 2.2 CHILDCARE 1.1 1.6 1.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 REPAYMENTS 4.4 5.0 4.9 4.2 3.8 4.4 HOUSE REPAIRS 3.4 5.8 3.2 2.1 3.4 3.2 MEDICAL EXPENSES 7.0 6.7 5.9 8.4 7.3 6.5 RECREATION 3.9 4.3 3.5 3.0 4.3 3.5 EDUCATION (CHILDREN) 4.0 4.4 5.4 4.3 2.9 4.7 ELECTRICITY 8.8 8.5 7.3 12.4 9.5 9.5 WATER 3.3 3.8 3.1 2.6 2.7 3.0 TELEPHONE 4.9 5.8 4.9 6.6 5.8 6.0 GAS 1.5 1.7 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

40

ANNEX
Graph VII: Average spending by item in household budget ( %) BiH

SRU - EWS

Table XVI Households with durable consumer goods (in %)

FBiH RS Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Telephones 81.55 78.09 72.22 Mobile phones 66.80 68.10 67.40 Dial up internet access 18.05 19.58 13.16 Car 51.59 48.33 51.52 Source: ALDI, BiH and entity consolidated budgets, Eurostat, IMF Sept 08. 72.44 68.53 12.11 51.47

Table XVII Self-description of household economic status (%)

BiH FBiH RS Br~ko District Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. Barely surviving 10.1 9.5 8.9 7.7 10.3 11.7 39.2 13.7 Well below average 12.4 14.0 9.3 12.0 16.4 15.4 21.1 44.4 Below average 18.3 19.7 15.8 17.5 22.2 23.1 13.1 19.7 TOTAL below average 40.7 43.2 34.0 37.2 48.9 50.2 73.4 77.8 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research Urban Rural BosniakMA Croat MA Serb MA Sept 08. Sept 08. Sept 08. Sept 08. Sept 08. 9.1 9.7 3.2 7.9 16.4 9.0 17.8 9.1 8.7 21.7 20.4 19.3 16.0 25.5 20.1 38.5 46.7 28.3 42.0 58.2

41

EWS - Q3
Graph VIII: Self-assessment of household economic status (%) -March to September

ANNEX

42

ANNEX

SRU - EWS

SOCIAL INCLUSION
Table I Assessment of current economic situation in BiH (%)
Bosniak majority areas Croat majority areas Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Majority sample Minority sample Majority sample Minority sample Total bad 67,8 72,0 42,2 58,7 61,4 64,0 Neither good nor bad 27,7 20,3 50,0 38,8 32,9 31,7 Total good 3,2 7,3 1,5 3,1 1,8 NA/DK 1,4 7,7 0,5 1,0 2,5 2,5 Total 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table II Expect prices over next six months to. (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Fall 3,9 3,0 Rise 75,5 81,5 Stay the same 13,7 6,9 NA/DK 6,9 8,6 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 14,4 10,4 70,1 67,4 13,8 11,8 1,8 10,3 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 13,4 9,9 71,6 68,3 10,6 15,3 4,4 6,5 100,0 100,0

Table III Expect household income over next six months to . (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Fall 13,0 15,9 Rise 16,8 16,7 Stay the same 62,8 60,8 NA/DK 7,5 6,6 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 15,0 11,9 35,9 25,4 44,6 53,3 4,5 9,5 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 13,3 9,0 26,5 28,9 55,0 58,1 5,2 4,0 100,0 100,0

Table IV Expect to save over next half year (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Yes 6,1 3,0 No 86,8 86,3 NA/DK 7,1 10,7 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 10,7 9,0 78,5 80,2 10,8 10,8 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 9,7 8,1 85,4 90,8 4,9 1,1 100,0 100,0

43

EWS - Q3
Table V Think political situation in BiH is. (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Deteriorating 57,2 60,6 Improving 31,8 29,6 NA/DK 11,0 9,7 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 61,5 64,5 23,3 17,1 15,1 18,4 100,0 100,0

ANNEX

Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 42,5 43,2 42,0 39,3 15,5 17,5 100,0 100,0

Table Va Expect political situation to deteriorate (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample September 57,2 60,6 June 54,4 55,6 March 78,8 88,3 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 61,5 64,5 57,5 71,5 57,7 65,7 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 42,5 43,2 42,5 39,2 57,3 37,6

Table VI Pride in ethnic identity (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 87,4 84,7 8,6 8,6 2,8 0,9 0,1 0,9 0,9 4,9 0,1 Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 78,3 72,9 11,9 11,1 6,4 2,0 1,0 1,5 7,6 0,8 100,0 6,3 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 78,4 82,7 15,5 9,3 2,5 1,8 0,7 0,9 1,5 5,4 0,6 0,7 100,0 100,0

Very proud Somewhat Not much Not at all Not important DK/Can't decide NA/DK Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Table VII Pride in being a citizen of BiH (%)

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Very proud 81,1 76,7 Somewhat 12,4 9,6 Not much 4,1 6,9 Not at all 0,7 1,9 Not important 0,9 4,9 DK/Can't decide 0,6 NA/DK 0,2 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 36,1 60,2 29,1 16,3 16,3 3,1 6,2 6,5 8,8 7,6 1,4 2,1 6,3 100,0 100,0 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 21,0 60,8 30,2 15,1 18,7 10,8 15,0 11,6 10,9 1,2 2,3 2,5 100,0 100,0

44

ANNEX
Table VIII Thinks High Representative's powers should be. (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Reduced 22,6 18,4 Increased 33,1 36,0 Left as they are 29,7 31,3 NA/DK 14,5 14,3 Total 100,0 100,0 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 42,2 17,2 16,2 31,3 36,1 42,1 5,4 9,3 100,0 100,0

SRU - EWS

Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 69,9 23,8 2,8 23,3 20,0 43,4 7,3 9,5 100,0 100,0

Table IX Possession of consumer durables

Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Telephone 79,7 74,1 Mobile phone 68,8 50,5 Car 42,7 35,6 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 72,5 83,8 65,7 54,5 67,9 53,7 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 72,4 74,5 68,5 62,0 51,5 43,7

Table X Believe that legal system will support them in the pursuit of their contractual and property rights (%)
Bosniak majority areas Majority sample Minority sample Strongly agree 8,03 6,00 Somewhat agree 38,59 48,93 Somewhat disagree 15,29 15,71 Strongly disagree 20,99 15,79 NA/DK 17,10 13,57 Total 100,00 100,00 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Croat majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 7,62 4,22 25,89 21,40 13,61 27,03 31,02 33,65 21,87 13,71 100,00 100,00 Serb majority areas Majority sample Minority sample 3,96 13,26 51,08 48,12 9,15 4,37 18,84 16,90 16,98 17,35 100,00 100,00

Table XI Self-description of household status (%) - March, June, and September 2008
Urban Mar. 08. June 08. Sept 08. Total below average 44.1 38.0 38.5 Source: Public opinion polls conducted for EWS by Prism Research Rural Mar. 08. Jun. 08. Sept 08. 53.1 42.8 46.7

45

EWS - Q3

ANNEX

ETHNIC RELATIONS
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 Urban
Mar. 2008

Rural
Sep 2008

Male
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Female
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

% % % % No - never 96.4 93.6 94.7 96.9 Yes - once 1.2 1.3 1.0 0.4 Yes - more than once 0.6 1.3 1.8 1.9 Yes - frequently 1.6 1.9 0.6 0.6 DK/NA 0.2 1.8 2.0 0.3 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

% 95.1 1.5 1.1 1.8 0.5 100.0

% 96.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 100.0

% 95.6 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.4 100.0

% 94.8 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.2 100.0

% 94.5 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.6 100.0

% 97.7 0.3 1.4 0.5 0.1 100.0

% 94.1 1.4 0.9 2.6 0.9 100.0

% 97.2 0.7 1.0 0.1 1.0 100.0

Table Ib 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?
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % 95.7 94.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.4 2.5 0.3 0.6 100.0 100.0

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % % No - never 97.1 94.7 94.7 Yes - once 0.4 1.3 0.7 Yes - more than once 1.7 0.2 1.1 Yes - frequently 0.4 2.6 0.9 DK/NA 0.3 1.1 2.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 % 96.4 0.7 1.0 0.7 1.2 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % 96.8 94.8 1.4 1.5 0.9 2.1 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.7 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 % 96.6 1.1 1.6 0.6 0.2 100.0

46

ANNEX
Table Ic

SRU - EWS

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? (%)
AREA Croat MA
Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Bosniak MA
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Serb MA
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. No - never 98.1 93.9 93.5 91.9 97.0 Yes - once 0.5 2.3 1.2 3.2 Yes - more than once 0.5 2.3 1.4 3.1 0.4 Yes - frequently 0.9 1.5 2.6 0.9 DK/NA 1.3 1.8 1.8 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. 92.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 100.0

Maj. 93.3 3.6 1.5 0.3 1.3 100.0

Min. Maj. 88.1 96.2 4.7 2.8 2.8 1.1 3.4 1.0 100.0 100.0

Min. 88.8 7.5 1.9 1.5 0.3 100.0

Maj. 86.1 3.4 6.3 0.7 3.5 100.0

Maj. 95.9 0.2 2.2 1.4 1.9 0.2 100.0 100.0

Min. 86.0 11.3 0.8

Min. Maj. 97.0 95.3 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.0 0.9 100.0 100.0

Maj. 97.5 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.2 100.0 100.0

Min. 91.2 5.6 2.1 1.1

Min. 97.5 1.8 0.7 100.0

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 Urban
Mar. 2008

Rural
Sep 2008

Male
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Female
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Strongly disagree 4.2 6.4 5.2 Basically disagree 7.9 4.4 7.4 Basically agree 28.2 26.0 29.8 Strongly agree 58.0 59.4 53.1 DK/NA 1.7 3.9 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 12.1 10.8 12.6 TOTAL AGREE 86.2 85.4 83.0 DK/NA 1.7 3.9 4.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

5.0 4.5 22.6 64.6 3.4 100.0 9.5 87.1 3.4 100.0

4.9 6.2 24.4 60.8 3.8 100.0 11.0 85.2 3.8 100.0

5.6 6.0 22.9 62.1 3.4 100.0 11.6 85.0 3.4 100.0

5.0 5.6 23.8 62.7 2.9 100.0 10.5 86.5 2.9 100.0

6.5 6.6 23.1 61.6 2.2 100.0 13.1 84.7 2.2 100.0

5.4 7.2 25.9 57.1 4.4 100.0 12.6 83.0 4.4 100.0

4.3 6.3 26.1 60.9 2.4 100.0 10.6 87.0 2.4 100.0

4.6 4.2 27.0 58.9 5.3 100.0 8.8 85.8 5.3 100.0

5.6 6.0 25.8 59.4 3.2 100.0 11.5 85.2 3.2 100.0

Table IIb 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?
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % 5.2 3.5 7.7 4.3 20.5 27.0 64.5 61.2 2.1 4.0 100.0 100.0 12.8 7.8 85.0 88.2 2.1 4.0 100.0 100.0

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % % Strongly disagree 5.8 6.8 4.9 Basically disagree 5.8 4.2 6.2 Basically agree 25.5 26.2 23.1 Strongly agree 60.0 59.8 60.6 DK/NA 3.0 3.0 5.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 11.6 11.0 11.0 TOTAL AGREE 85.4 86.0 83.6 DK/NA 3.0 3.0 5.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 % 2.9 7.2 31.2 54.1 4.6 100.0 10.1 85.3 4.6 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % 3.4 5.6 5.1 7.0 27.0 22.6 61.8 60.7 2.7 4.1 100.0 100.0 8.5 12.6 88.8 83.4 2.7 4.1 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 % 7.5 6.6 25.5 58.4 1.9 100.0 14.1 83.9 1.9 100.0

47

EWS - Q3
Table IIc

ANNEX

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? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 4.5 2.8 8.6 2.9 15.5 4.8 12.7 5.4 4.9 18.9 14.0 9.4 38.0 32.0 31.1 13.3 27.8 40.9 39.2 51.8 49.8 64.2 33.1 42.1 5.6 7.9 5.6 0.7 9.7 2.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 17.2 8.2 13.5 21.8 29.5 14.2 77.2 83.8 80.9 77.5 60.8 82.9 5.6 7.9 5.6 0.7 9.7 2.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Bosniak majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Strongly disagree 3.6 0.7 5.4 5.6 2.3 4.0 Basically disagree 2.8 5.9 4.1 1.9 2.6 4.0 Basically agree 12.5 4.7 13.6 9.0 18.4 17.0 Strongly agree 80.2 86.7 73.7 82.0 74.3 71.3 DK/NA 0.9 1.9 3.2 1.4 2.3 3.7 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 6.4 6.7 9.5 7.6 5.0 8.0 TOTAL AGREE 92.6 91.4 87.3 91.1 92.7 88.3 DK/NA 0.9 1.9 3.2 1.4 2.3 3.7 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Serb majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 6.0 2.2 4.7 12.1 6.0 11.6 7.7 1.9 7.0 3.5 9.0 1.1 35.7 13.2 37.3 10.1 35.0 21.9 46.8 82.7 46.9 71.9 46.2 58.1 3.9 4.2 2.4 3.8 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 13.7 4.1 11.7 15.6 15.0 12.7 82.5 95.9 84.1 82.0 81.1 80.0 3.9 4.2 2.4 3.8 7.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table IIIa To which of the following categories does your family/household belong? (%)
Gender Urban
Mar. 2008

Rural
Sep 2008

Male
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Female
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Resident, never moved away 68.7 72.0 62.2 73.4 Displaced - lived elsewhere before the war 12.7 12.5 16.3 10.6 Refugee from another country 0.9 1.0 0.5 1.1 Returnee 6.2 7.7 9.8 9.2 Moved here after the war 6.3 5.7 9.6 4.2 DK/NA 5.1 1.0 1.6 1.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

74.0 10.4 0.5 9.8 3.3 2.0 100.0

67.2 10.7 0.7 13.2 4.9 3.4 100.0

71.8 10.7 1.1 8.0 4.8 3.6 100.0

72.7 11.4 0.5 10.2 3.9 1.3 100.0

66.6 13.1 0.8 11.0 6.4 2.1 100.0

71.0 12.3 0.9 7.8 5.4 2.6 100.0

73.5 11.3 0.9 7.7 4.7 1.8 100.0

63.6 13.1 0.4 12.5 7.4 3.1 100.0

Table IIIb To which of the following categories does your family/household belong?
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % 70.1 72.4 13.0 0.7 9.7 3.8 2.7 100.0 15.0 0.0 6.6 4.9 1.1 100.0

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % % Resident, never moved away 66.6 72.8 64.0 Displaced - lived elsewhere before the war 11.6 9.2 11.5 Refugee from another country 0.9 1.2 0.6 Returnee 7.6 8.7 9.3 Moved here after the war 9.3 6.7 12.0 DK/NA 4.0 1.5 2.7 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 % 62.0 17.3 0.2 12.1 6.3 2.0 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % 76.1 73.9 10.6 1.2 7.2 2.3 2.5 100.0 11.2 0.7 10.5 2.2 1.5 100.0

Sep 2008 % 67.7 12.3 0.8 13.9 2.5 2.8 100.0

48

ANNEX
Table IIIc To which of the following categories does your family/household belong? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Maj. Min. 81.5 4.0 2.0 28.8 0.3 9.9 67.7 2.0 0.3 17.9 7.4 4.7 100.0 Jun. 2008 Maj. Min. 78.1 3.4 60.6 6.8 1.1 23.4 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. 78.1 5.8 1.4 9.2 36.4 5.0

SRU - EWS

Bosniak majority areas

Population Resident, never moved away 68.4 Displaced - lived elsewhere before the war 9.5 Refugee from another country 0.4 Returnee 8.9 Moved here after the war 8.0 DK/NA 4.8 TOTAL 100.0 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 72.8 75.8 7.2 6.6 0.3 9.9 74.6 3.8 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. 64.1 7.0 62.3

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Maj. Min. 74.1 15.8 1.2 5.1 21.9 8.2 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Min. Maj. Min. 69.4 19.8 1.4 4.5 23.0 64.1 13.5 22.4 2.4 58.9 2.3 0.9 4.7 41.6 10.9

12.8

18.5

16.4

14.0 2.5 2.1 100.0

49.5

65.5

43.2 1.8 2.5 100.0

1.2 5.4 6.1 1.9 100.0 100.0

1.8 10.3 1.2 2.1 100.0 100.0

4.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 100.0 100.0

5.6 2.9 2.6 2.6 100.0 100.0

7.0 2.4 2.0 1.4 100.0 100.0

2.5 3.7 1.9 1.2 100.0 100.0

4.7 3.3 100.0 100.0

Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table IVa How acceptable do you find it...? (%)

Croat M.A. Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Maj. Maj. to live in the same country as Bosniaks Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to live in the same country as Bosniaks Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have Bosniaks as neighbours Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have Bosniaks as neighbours Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 48.1 21.9 19.0 7.9 3.1 100.0 70.0 26.9 3.1 100.0 46.1 20.7 21.1 9.0 3.1 100.0 66.7 30.2 3.1 100.0 50.8 26.1 8.3 10.5 4.3 100.0 76.9 18.8 4.3 100.0 49.1 27.0 9.4 10.2 4.3 100.0 76.1 19.6 4.3 100.0 Serb M.A. Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Maj. Maj. 37.5 38.1 11.7 11.8 0.9 100.0 75.6 23.4 0.9 100.0 36.5 37.7 12.3 12.0 1.5 100.0 74.2 24.3 1.5 100.0 48.5 32.7 7.7 9.4 1.8 100.0 81.1 17.0 1.8 100.0 46.5 29.8 9.7 10.6 3.4 100.0 76.3 20.3 3.4 100.0

Sep 2008 Maj. 49.8 17.6 16.6 13.3 2.6 100.0 67.4 29.9 2.6 100.0 48.5 18.6 16.7 13.5 2.6 100.0 67.2 30.2 2.6 100.0

Sep 2008 Maj. 34.5 36.2 13.4 12.1 3.8 100.0 70.7 25.5 3.8 100.0 32.4 37.5 13.8 12.3 4.1 100.0 69.8 26.1 4.1 100.0

49

EWS - Q3
Table IVb How acceptable do you find it...? (%)
Croat M.A. Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Maj. Maj. for Bosniak children to go to the same school as your children Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Bosniak boss Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Bosniak boss Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Bosniak Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Bosniak Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total Source: EWS opinion polls conducted by PRISM Research 60.6 34.3 5.1 100.0 40.8 10.6 26.9 16.3 5.3 100.0 51.5 43.2 5.3 100.0 22.2 5.8 28.0 38.8 5.1 100.0 28.0 66.8 5.1 100.0 75.0 20.5 4.5 100.0 45.3 23.2 15.1 11.8 4.5 100.0 68.6 26.9 4.5 100.0 18.6 10.7 28.1 36.5 6.0 100.0 29.4 64.6 6.0 100.0 Serb M.A. Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Maj. Maj. 73.9 24.2 1.9 100.0 25.9 38.1 17.1 14.4 4.4 100.0 64.1 31.5 4.4 100.0 13.2 23.4 21.4 37.7 4.3 100.0 36.6 59.1 4.3 100.0 75.1 22.3 2.6 100.0 31.1 26.2 20.3 17.0 5.3 100.0 57.3 37.4 5.3 100.0 13.5 13.5 24.7 41.8 6.5 100.0 27.0 66.5 6.5 100.0

ANNEX

Sep 2008 Maj. 65.3 31.7 3.0 100.0 45.5 17.1 20.2 13.5 3.6 100.0 62.6 33.8 3.6 100.0 29.8 6.4 19.4 40.9 3.6 100.0 36.2 60.3 3.6 100.0

Sep 2008 Maj. 68.1 26.9 5.0 100.0 28.3 30.6 20.5 14.8 5.9 100.0 58.9 35.2 5.9 100.0 14.7 13.1 20.3 42.2 9.5 100.0 27.9 62.7 9.5 100.0

50

ANNEX
Table V How acceptable do you find it...? (%)
Bosniak majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Maj. Maj. 92.2 91.5 90.7 3.6 4.5 6.0 1.4 0.6 2.5 1.5 0.5 1.7 1.0 2.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.8 96.0 96.7 2.5 2.9 1.1 1.7 1.0 2.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.2 91.9 88.5 3.6 4.3 8.1 1.4 0.7 2.5 1.3 0.5 1.7 1.0 2.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.8 96.2 96.6 2.5 2.8 1.2 1.7 1.0 2.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.0 3.1 0.6 2.5 1.7 100.0 95.2 3.2 1.7 100.0 90.1 3.3 2.1 2.7 1.8 100.0 93.4 4.7 1.8 100.0 28.1 10.0 13.2 42.2 6.6 100.0 38.0 55.3 6.6 100.0 91.8 4.5 1.2 1.3 1.1 100.0 96.3 2.5 1.1 100.0 90.5 5.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 100.0 95.7 2.5 1.8 100.0 27.1 8.6 13.0 44.3 7.0 100.0 35.7 57.3 7.0 100.0 87.3 7.8 1.4 1.4 2.2 100.0 95.1 2.7 2.2 100.0 84.9 8.3 2.6 2.0 2.2 100.0 93.2 4.6 2.2 100.0 24.5 8.0 13.8 48.2 5.6 100.0 32.4 62.0 5.6 100.0

SRU - EWS

to live in the same country as Croats

Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA

Total to live in the same country as Croats

Total to have Croats as neighbours

Total to have Croats as neighbours

Total for Croat children to go to the same school as your children Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for Croat children to go to the same school as your children Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Croat boss Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Croat boss Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Croat Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Croat Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Serb majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Maj. Maj. 38.2 50.5 35.7 38.2 31.2 36.1 11.0 8.5 14.6 11.7 8.6 10.6 0.9 1.1 3.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 76.4 81.8 71.8 22.7 17.1 25.2 0.9 1.1 3.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 36.4 49.0 33.8 38.2 28.6 37.6 11.4 10.7 14.5 12.4 9.4 10.8 1.5 2.2 3.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.7 77.6 71.4 23.8 20.2 25.3 1.5 2.2 3.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 36.7 37.6 10.8 13.1 1.7 100.0 74.3 24.0 1.7 100.0 27.5 37.3 15.0 15.9 4.4 100.0 64.8 30.8 4.4 100.0 16.7 24.2 20.8 34.0 4.3 100.0 40.9 54.8 4.3 100.0 48.4 28.9 11.3 8.6 2.8 100.0 77.3 19.9 2.8 100.0 35.7 26.3 18.0 14.5 5.5 100.0 62.0 32.5 5.5 100.0 17.8 20.4 19.6 35.6 6.5 100.0 38.2 55.3 6.5 100.0 33.4 35.4 15.4 11.2 4.6 100.0 68.8 26.6 4.6 100.0 30.4 30.9 20.1 13.6 5.1 100.0 61.3 33.6 5.1 100.0 14.3 13.4 24.6 37.2 10.3 100.0 27.7 62.0 10.3 100.0

51

EWS - Q3
Table VI How acceptable do you find it...? (%)
Bosniak majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Maj. Maj. 91.0 90.9 86.7 4.3 4.4 7.0 1.8 1.1 2.9 1.9 2.9 1.9 1.0 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.2 95.3 93.7 2.9 3.7 4.0 1.9 1.0 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.6 91.1 84.4 4.3 4.1 8.3 0.1 1.9 2.0 3.1 1.9 2.9 1.9 1.0 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.9 95.2 92.7 3.2 3.8 5.0 1.9 1.0 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.9 3.8 0.1 3.3 1.9 100.0 94.6 3.4 1.9 100.0 88.3 3.7 1.7 4.2 2.1 100.0 92.0 5.9 2.1 100.0 27.4 8.7 13.6 43.6 6.6 100.0 36.1 57.3 6.6 100.0 90.5 4.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 100.0 94.6 3.8 1.7 100.0 88.6 4.4 2.3 1.9 2.9 100.0 93.0 4.1 2.9 100.0 24.8 7.8 9.4 49.7 8.3 100.0 32.6 59.1 8.3 100.0 82.9 8.2 2.8 3.7 2.3 100.0 91.2 6.5 2.3 100.0 81.9 7.8 3.7 4.3 2.3 100.0 89.7 8.0 2.3 100.0 20.5 6.4 14.6 51.5 7.0 100.0 26.9 66.1 7.0 100.0

ANNEX

to live in the same country as Serbs

Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA

Total to live in the same country as Serbs

Total to have Serbs as neighbours

Total to have Serbs as neighbours

Total for Serb children to go to the same school as your children Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for Serb children to go to the same school as your children Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Serb boss Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total to have a Serb boss Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Serb Entirely acceptable Basically acceptable Basically unacceptable Entirely unacceptable DK/NA Total for a family member to marry a Serb Total acceptable Total unacceptable DK/NA Total *Source: EWS opinion polls conducted by PRISM Research

Croat majority areas Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Maj. Maj. Maj. 48.0 48.1 49.8 20.9 26.8 19.0 20.0 11.9 15.7 6.8 9.3 12.9 4.2 4.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 69.0 74.8 68.7 26.8 21.1 28.6 4.2 4.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 46.2 46.4 49.6 19.8 28.2 18.2 21.0 11.5 16.4 9.1 9.8 13.2 3.9 4.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 65.9 74.6 67.8 30.1 21.3 29.6 3.9 4.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 43.5 17.4 22.3 11.3 5.4 100.0 61.0 33.6 5.4 100.0 41.1 11.7 25.9 15.7 5.6 100.0 52.8 41.6 5.6 100.0 24.9 8.0 26.5 35.4 5.1 100.0 33.0 61.9 5.1 100.0 45.7 28.6 11.8 9.9 4.0 100.0 74.3 21.6 4.0 100.0 39.8 23.5 19.9 12.7 4.0 100.0 63.3 32.6 4.0 100.0 19.0 11.3 30.8 33.4 5.5 100.0 30.3 64.2 5.5 100.0 47.5 20.0 15.5 14.0 3.0 100.0 67.5 29.5 3.0 100.0 44.6 19.3 18.6 14.5 3.0 100.0 63.9 33.2 3.0 100.0 28.3 9.2 21.0 37.6 3.9 100.0 37.5 58.6 3.9 100.0

52

ANNEX
Table VIIa Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%)
Gender Urban
Mar. 2008

SRU - EWS

Rural
Sep 2008

Male
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Female
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Yes 36.5 34.6 36.1 36.2 No 51.7 50.5 52.5 55.2 DK/NA 11.8 14.9 11.4 8.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

34.5 54.5 11.0 100.0

29.6 60.4 10.0 100.0

41.8 49.8 8.4 100.0

38.0 47.8 14.3 100.0

37.1 53.5 9.4 100.0

31.1 57.5 11.4 100.0

31.2 57.6 11.2 100.0

27.9 60.4 11.7 100.0

Table VIIb Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%)
Age 36 - 50
Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

18 - 35
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

51 +
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Yes 51.7 47.4 No 36.4 37.5 DK/NA 11.9 15.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

45.0 43.1 12.0 100.0

41.3 47.5 11.2 100.0

38.0 46.8 15.2 100.0

30.8 56.4 12.9 100.0

20.9 71.4 7.7 100.0

21.9 69.2 8.8 100.0

21.2 70.8 7.9 100.0

Table VIIc Would you move to a town where you do not belong to the majority ethnicity for work? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Yes 46.6 53.8 36.7 45.6 39.0 No 42.4 38.5 52.3 45.6 53.2 DK/NA 11.0 7.7 11.0 8.8 7.9 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. 42.9 48.6 8.5 100.0

Maj. 33.1 57.2 9.7 100.0

Min. 45.1 38.9 16.0 100.0

Maj. 42.8 42.6 14.6 100.0

Min. 36.8 51.9 11.3 100.0

Maj. 30.9 58.3 10.9 100.0

Min. 15.9 65.2 18.9 100.0

Maj. 25.2 65.7 9.2 100.0

Min. 62.9 31.9 5.2 100.0

Maj. 29.0 56.4 14.5 100.0

Min. Maj. 57.1 26.7 34.8 59.2 8.1 14.1 100.0 100.0

Min. 43.3 38.5 18.2 100.0

Table VIIIa How proud are you of your ethnicity?

Gender Urban Rural Male Female Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % % % % % % % % % % % Very 73.1 78.7 77.3 84.8 83.8 86.8 79.4 79.9 82.4 80.2 83.2 83.1 Somewhat 16.6 13.3 16.2 11.0 11.0 8.3 11.9 13.1 11.4 14.8 11.0 11.9 Not very 5.5 3.0 3.8 1.9 2.4 2.6 4.2 2.4 3.4 2.6 3.0 2.8 Not all 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 It's not important 3.8 2.2 1.5 1.0 2.2 1.1 3.4 2.7 1.8 1.0 1.7 0.8 DK 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 NA 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 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 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

53

EWS - Q3
Table VIIIb How proud are you of your ethnicity? (%)
18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Very 78.6 81.6 80.0 Somewhat 14.2 11.1 13.8 Not very 4.2 3.1 4.1 Not all 0.6 0.5 0.0 It's not important 1.8 2.6 1.3 DK 0.4 NA 0.5 1.2 0.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 81.0 81.8 11.7 12.9 3.8 1.7 0.8 0.3 2.2 3.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 100.0 100.0 51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 80.1 81.3 13.6 12.6 2.6 3.0 0.4 1.3 2.5 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 100.0 100.0

ANNEX

Sep 2008 84.3 13.0 1.7 0.1 0.8

100.0

Sep 2008 84.5 8.8 3.0 1.2 1.5 0.4 0.7 100.0

Table VIIIc How proud are you of your ethnicity? (%)

Bosniak majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

AREA Croat majority areas

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Very 85.2 83.4 91.1 74.5 87.4 Somewhat 10.2 5.6 4.8 10.7 8.6 Not very 2.2 2.6 0.7 2.1 2.8 Not all 0.3 1.2 0.4 4.7 0.1 It's not important 1.2 4.9 2.0 7.4 0.9 DK 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.1 NA 0.4 1.2 0.7 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. Maj. 84.7 88.5 8.6 7.0 0.9 2.1 0.9 0.8 4.9 0.7 0.9 100.0 100.0

Min. 88.8 3.6 1.6 0.3 4.9 0.6 0.3 100.0

Maj. 77.3 13.3 4.5 1.1 3.6 0.2 100.0

Min. Maj. 85.1 78.3 8.9 11.9 2.8 6.4 2.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.8 100.0 100.0

Min. 72.9 11.1 2.0 7.6

Maj. 70.2 19.6 5.2 0.9 4.0 0.2

Min. Maj. 78.1 71.3 15.9 20.5 1.9 4.5 1.1 4.1 2.0 0.6 100.0 100.0

6.3 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 71.4 78.4 16.2 15.5 1.1 2.5 2.4 0.7 4.4 1.5 1.1 0.6 3.5 0.7 100.0 100.0

Min. 82.7 9.3 1.8 0.9 5.4

100.0

Table IXa How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%)
GENDER Urban Rural Male Female Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Very 48.6 51.5 46.3 54.5 53.1 55.5 50.2 51.3 49.7 53.7 53.4 53.4 Somewhat 21.2 14.8 21.2 19.5 14.3 21.6 18.8 13.4 21.4 21.6 15.5 21.5 Not very 13.4 12.1 13.8 8.1 11.1 9.6 11.9 12.3 11.9 8.9 10.8 10.9 Not all 8.9 10.2 9.1 8.6 6.7 5.6 10.0 9.3 7.6 7.5 7.2 6.7 It's not important 7.1 9.5 7.9 7.2 13.7 4.9 8.1 12.2 7.5 6.3 11.7 5.0 DK 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.1 NA 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.8 1.7 0.4 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.7 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 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

54

ANNEX
Table IXb How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%)
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 54.1 51.5 18.0 11.6 8.1 11.6 9.7 9.4 8.5 15.4 0.5 0.3 1.2 0.1 100.0 100.0

SRU - EWS

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Very 52.7 52.9 50.8 Somewhat 19.1 14.7 26.7 Not very 13.1 11.2 10.3 Not all 8.8 6.9 6.8 It's not important 5.5 12.8 3.9 DK 0.2 0.1 0.5 NA 0.6 1.3 1.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 46.3 20.7 12.6 10.0 8.9 1.2 0.3 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 50.3 51.8 22.4 15.7 9.3 12.1 8.2 8.8 7.8 9.7 1.3 0.8 0.7 1.1 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 55.2 16.8 11.8 5.9 7.0 1.2 2.0 100.0

Table IXc How proud are you of being a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Very 82.9 79.0 89.8 78.0 81.1 Somewhat 11.4 6.4 4.0 10.0 12.4 Not very 2.1 5.0 1.5 2.1 4.1 Not all 1.8 3.5 1.7 4.1 0.7 It's not important 0.8 3.9 2.1 3.4 0.9 DK 0.6 1.2 0.2 0.6 NA 0.4 1.2 0.7 2.4 0.2 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Maj. 31.2 30.8 13.9 13.4 8.2 0.1 2.4 100.0 100.0

Min. 76.7 9.6 6.9 1.9 4.9

Maj. 35.6 21.1 15.8 12.9 11.6 1.3 1.8 100.0 100.0

Min. 66.1 19.3 5.8 2.4 5.9 0.6

Min. 69.2 7.6 9.3 9.2 3.2 0.5 1.0 100.0

Maj. 36.1 29.1 16.3 6.2 8.8 1.4 2.1 100.0

Maj. 21.4 27.5 19.1 15.6 14.5 1.1 6.3 0.8 100.0 100.0

Min. 60.2 16.3 3.1 6.5 7.6

Min. Maj. 70.5 12.7 20.3 25.1 4.1 22.3 2.2 14.4 3.0 23.9 0.5 1.1 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 54.3 21.0 16.3 30.2 3.2 18.7 8.4 15.0 13.3 11.6 1.1 1.2 3.5 2.3 100.0 100.0

Min. 60.8 15.1 10.8 10.9 2.5 100.0

Table Xa If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%)
TIP Urban
Mar. 2008

Gender Rural
Sep 2008

Male
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Female
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Yes 28.6 14.0 19.9 No 56.2 71.7 63.9 DK/NA 15.2 14.3 16.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

22.9 63.3 13.9 100.0

16.8 71.3 11.8 100.0

17.3 71.5 11.2 100.0

24.8 62.3 12.9 100.0

16.2 73.9 9.9 100.0

20.9 67.5 11.6 100.0

25.9 58.3 15.9 100.0

15.0 69.2 15.8 100.0

16.1 68.9 15.0 100.0

Table Xb If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%)
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 26.1 21.0 63.3 65.5 10.6 13.5 100.0 100.0

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Yes 27.0 11.4 19.0 No 56.1 77.6 66.7 DK/NA 16.9 11.0 14.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 14.7 72.6 12.7 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 23.5 16.6 62.0 70.3 14.5 13.1 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 19.9 67.2 12.8 100.0

55

EWS - Q3
Table Xc If international security forces withdrew, do you think war could break out again? (%)
Bosniak majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

ANNEX

AREA Croat majority areas

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Yes 34.5 24.4 16.2 20.8 26.0 No 48.2 53.8 65.1 53.3 56.6 DK/NA 17.3 21.9 18.7 25.8 17.4 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. 17.5 70.7 11.8 100.0

Maj. 26.2 54.7 19.2 100.0

Min. 36.6 51.4 12.0 100.0

Maj. 12.4 75.2 12.4 100.0

Min. 26.4 61.3 12.3 100.0

Maj. 15.5 74.5 10.0 100.0

Min. 19.6 71.1 9.3 100.0

Maj. 13.6 76.1 10.3 100.0

Min. 27.2 64.9 8.0 100.0

Maj. 15.4 78.1 6.5 100.0

Min. Maj. 18.4 11.5 55.6 78.0 26.0 10.5 100.0 100.0

Min. 13.5 75.4 11.1 100.0

Table XIa Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%)
Gender Male

Urban Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights Yes 49.6 54.8 No 39.2 39.0 DK/NA 11.2 6.2 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Rural

Female

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Sep 2008Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

53.7 37.8 8.5 100.0

51.4 43.6 4.9 100.0

52.8 41.6 5.6 100.0

45.4 48.0 6.7 100.0

55.5 37.1 7.4 100.0

56.7 36.3 7.0 100.0

52.2 40.9 6.9 100.0

46.0 46.2 7.8 100.0

50.7 44.5 4.8 100.0

45.9 46.2 7.9 100.0

Table XIb Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%)
18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights Yes 56.3 57.9 51.1 No 33.2 35.5 39.3 DK/NA 10.4 6.6 9.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 60.7 34.5 4.8 100.0 62.9 31.2 5.9 100.0 51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 40.5 52.7 6.8 100.0 45.0 50.2 4.9 100.0

Sep 2008 57.1 38.1 4.8 100.0

Sep 2008 42.5 50.8 6.7 100.0

Table XIc Would support or personally participate in public protests, strikes, or demonstrations regarding...? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Discrimination/to protect ethnic or civil rights 54.3 51.5 61.3 53.2 49.8 35.0 41.6 31.5 38.9 42.0 10.7 6.9 7.1 7.9 8.1 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. Maj. 39.1 48.6 12.3 100.0 56.2 35.4 8.4 100.0

Min.

Maj.

Min. 35.5 61.6 2.9 100.0

Maj. 54.3 35.7 10.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 48.9 34.5 16.6 100.0 45.0 50.7 4.3 100.0

Min. 49.0 49.4 1.6 100.0

Maj. 50.5 45.5 4.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 41.8 47.3 53.5 46.5 4.7 6.2 100.0 100.0

Min. 46.5 49.0 4.4 100.0

48.4 41.2 44.0 50.8 7.7 8.0 100.0 100.0

56

ANNEX
Table XIIa How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%)
Gender Urban None 10.0 11.2 Little 18.8 20.3 A certain amount 31.3 30.0 A lot 34.4 26.2 DK/NA 5.5 12.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Total LITTLE 28.8 31.5 Total MUCH 65.8 56.2 DK/NA 5.5 12.3 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 11.4 17.8 30.5 32.9 7.3 100.0 29.3 63.4 7.3 100.0 13.2 17.6 34.8 22.1 12.3 100.0 30.8 56.9 12.3 100.0 Rural 14.7 24.3 30.5 20.0 10.6 100.0 39.0 50.5 10.6 100.0 18.4 24.5 28.3 23.1 5.8 100.0 42.8 51.4 5.8 100.0 10.3 17.4 35.6 28.6 8.2 100.0 27.6 64.2 8.2 100.0 Male 14.2 22.4 29.3 26.4 7.7 100.0 36.6 55.7 7.7 100.0 14.2 23.9 26.0 30.9 5.0 100.0 38.1 56.9 5.0 100.0 13.3 18.8 31.0 26.3 10.5 100.0 32.2 57.3 10.5 100.0

SRU - EWS

Female 12.2 22.8 31.2 19.0 14.8 100.0 35.0 50.2 14.8 100.0 16.5 19.4 32.3 23.8 7.9 100.0 36.0 56.1 7.9 100.0

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

Sep 2008Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Table XIIb How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%)
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 12.7 10.2 20.4 23.1 30.4 27.7 29.4 28.7 7.1 10.3 100.0 100.0 33.1 33.3 59.8 56.4 7.1 10.3 100.0 100.0

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 None 10.7 14.2 13.4 Little 14.3 23.1 17.4 A certain amount 35.6 29.9 35.2 A lot 30.2 22.7 29.7 DK/NA 9.2 10.1 4.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total LITTLE 24.9 37.3 30.8 Total MUCH 65.8 52.6 64.9 DK/NA 9.2 10.1 4.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 14.4 23.0 27.7 29.2 5.7 100.0 37.5 56.8 5.7 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 12.3 13.6 20.1 21.7 32.9 32.1 24.0 19.7 10.7 12.8 100.0 100.0 32.4 35.3 56.9 51.9 10.7 12.8 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 17.8 24.9 24.4 24.0 9.0 100.0 42.7 48.3 9.0 100.0

Table XIIc How much influence do you think the religious communities/churches in BiH have on current politics? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. None 4.1 1.5 4.7 6.8 7.3 Little 10.0 17.3 17.6 10.6 12.6 A certain amount 38.2 26.8 28.7 15.1 31.5 A lot 37.3 39.4 32.5 45.2 43.0 DK/NA 10.4 14.9 16.5 22.2 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Total LITTLE 14.1 18.8 22.3 17.5 19.9 Total MUCH 75.5 66.3 61.2 60.4 74.5 DK/NA 10.4 14.9 16.5 22.2 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. 4.9 10.4 29.1 45.2 10.4 100.0 15.3 74.4 10.4 100.0

Maj. 13.6 23.7 38.8 15.4 8.4 100.0 37.3 54.2 8.4 100.0

Min. 8.7 25.0 33.7 28.7 3.9 100.0 33.7 62.4 3.9 100.0

Maj. 20.7 29.8 35.1 10.6 3.7 100.0 50.5 45.7 3.7 100.0

Min. 6.1 28.3 24.6 38.0 3.0 100.0 34.4 62.6 3.0 100.0

Maj. 9.2 29.8 36.2 14.7 10.0 100.0 39.0 51.0 10.0 100.0

Min. 6.6 11.7 39.2 35.1 7.3 100.0 18.3 74.3 7.3 100.0

Maj. 19.2 24.0 27.2 21.1 8.5 100.0 43.2 48.4 8.5 100.0

Min. 8.2 25.0 22.9 28.3 15.6 100.0 33.2 51.2 15.6 100.0

Maj. 19.2 25.3 31.0 16.1 8.4 100.0 44.5 47.1 8.4 100.0

Min. Maj. 11.8 24.5 35.1 29.7 31.5 24.3 12.5 14.8 9.1 6.6 100.0 100.0 46.9 54.2 44.1 39.2 9.1 6.6 100.0 100.0

Min. 19.2 31.3 20.4 14.0 15.1 100.0 50.5 34.5 15.1 100.0

57

EWS - Q3
Table XIIIa

ANNEX

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 Urban Strongly disagree 38.0 37.7 Basically disagree 30.9 26.0 Basically agree 13.4 15.8 Strongly agree 8.1 6.6 DK/NA 9.6 13.8 Total 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 68.9 63.8 TOTAL AGREE 21.5 22.4 DK/NA 9.6 13.8 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 34.1 28.9 21.0 5.3 10.7 100.0 63.0 26.4 10.7 100.0 35.1 28.9 16.2 7.9 11.8 100.0 64.0 24.2 11.8 100.0 Rural 36.4 26.0 16.4 7.4 13.8 100.0 62.4 23.8 13.8 100.0 29.7 27.2 19.1 9.0 15.0 100.0 56.9 28.1 15.0 100.0 34.3 32.1 14.7 8.4 10.5 100.0 66.5 23.0 10.5 100.0 Male 36.2 28.1 16.7 7.3 11.7 100.0 64.3 24.1 11.7 100.0 30.0 30.3 19.5 7.7 12.5 100.0 60.3 27.2 12.5 100.0 38.7 27.8 15.0 7.6 10.9 100.0 66.5 22.7 10.9 100.0 Female 37.8 24.3 15.6 6.7 15.5 100.0 62.1 22.4 15.5 100.0 33.2 26.4 20.4 6.9 13.1 100.0 59.6 27.3 13.1 100.0
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Table XIIIb Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or disagree with this idea? (%)
18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Strongly disagree 39.8 34.5 31.5 Basically disagree 26.9 25.1 28.5 Basically agree 15.5 17.5 19.9 Strongly agree 7.0 9.3 9.6 DK/NA 10.8 13.7 10.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 66.7 59.6 60.0 TOTAL AGREE 22.5 26.7 29.5 DK/NA 10.8 13.7 10.5 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 37.0 38.3 31.8 27.0 10.6 15.7 10.9 5.3 9.8 13.6 100.0 100.0 68.7 65.3 21.4 21.1 9.8 13.6 100.0 100.0 51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 34.0 38.3 31.1 26.7 16.8 15.2 7.1 6.2 11.1 13.6 100.0 100.0 65.0 65.0 23.8 21.4 11.1 13.6 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 30.7 29.5 19.8 6.1 14.0 100.0 60.2 25.8 14.0 100.0

Sep 2008 32.7 26.9 20.3 5.9 14.2 100.0 59.6 26.2 14.2 100.0

Table XIIIc Some people say that only the ethnic parties can protect vital ethnic interests. To what degree do you agree or disagree with this idea? (%)
Bosniak majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

AREA Croat majority areas

Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Population Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Strongly disagree 52.0 57.9 43.6 67.4 44.6 Basically disagree 27.0 28.4 25.8 16.3 28.9 Basically agree 3.8 7.4 3.8 6.5 11.8 Strongly agree 5.8 2.1 11.2 4.3 4.2 DK/NA 11.5 4.2 15.6 5.4 10.6 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL DISAGREE 79.0 86.3 69.4 83.7 73.4 TOTAL AGREE 9.5 9.5 15.1 10.9 15.9 DK/NA 11.5 4.2 15.6 5.4 10.6 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. 33.3 30.4 7.2 7.2 21.7 100.0 63.8 14.5 21.7 100.0

Maj. 17.7 30.1 29.4 13.9 8.9 100.0 47.8 43.4 8.9 100.0

Min. 47.8 16.9 18.4 6.3 10.6 100.0 64.7 24.6 10.6 100.0

Maj. 25.0 26.6 26.6 5.6 16.1 100.0 51.6 32.2 16.1 100.0

Min. 52.8 22.7 17.2 1.2 6.1 100.0 75.5 18.4 6.1 100.0

Maj. 26.3 20.9 29.6 9.0 14.3 100.0 47.2 38.5 14.3 100.0

Min. 32.2 32.2 22.6 5.5 7.5 100.0 64.4 28.1 7.5 100.0

Maj. 26.5 38.2 13.7 7.6 13.9 100.0 64.7 21.3 13.9 100.0

Min. 39.2 27.0 12.2 12.2 9.5 100.0 66.2 24.3 9.5 100.0

Maj. 24.1 27.3 23.3 7.6 17.7 100.0 51.4 31.0 17.7 100.0

Min. Maj. 32.9 22.8 32.9 30.3 14.3 22.6 7.1 8.9 12.9 15.4 100.0 100.0 65.7 53.1 21.4 31.5 12.9 15.4 100.0 100.0

Min. 25.6 26.7 17.4 12.8 17.4 100.0 52.3 30.2 17.4 100.0

58

ANNEX

SRU - EWS

PUBLIC AND PERSONAL SECURITY

The Safety Index of BiH

Table Ia During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of.... (%)
Urban Burglary at home Yes 2.0 3.1 No 97.9 96.5 DK/NA 0.0 0.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Burglary at workplace Yes 0.2 0.9 No 96.9 98.6 DK/NA 2.9 0.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Pickpocketing Yes 2.9 2.1 No 95.9 97.4 DK/NA 1.3 0.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Car theft Yes 0.7 1.8 No 98.0 97.7 DK/NA 1.3 0.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Theft of other valuables Yes 4.2 3.1 No 94.5 96.5 DK/NA 1.3 0.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Scam/Con Yes 0.0 0.3 No 99.2 99.0 DK/NA 0.8 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Blackmail Yes 1.0 No 99.1 98.4 DK/NA 0.9 0.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research Rural Male Female

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

2.9 96.0 1.1 100.0 1.0 97.5 1.5 100.0 4.1 94.3 1.6 100.0 0.6 98.1 1.3 100.0 3.6 94.8 1.6 100.0 0.5 97.8 1.7 100.0 0.8 97.6 1.6 100.0

0.7 99.0 0.3 100.0 1.0 97.6 1.4 100.0 1.0 98.5 0.5 100.0 0.1 99.4 0.5 100.0 2.1 97.2 0.7 100.0 0.1 99.3 0.6 100.0 0.3 99.1 0.6 100.0

1.8 96.8 1.4 100.0 1.0 97.0 2.0 100.0 1.4 97.2 1.4 100.0 0.8 97.8 1.4 100.0 1.1 97.6 1.4 100.0 0.7 98.1 1.3 100.0 1.1 97.6 1.3 100.0

1.9 95.4 2.6 100.0 1.2 96.2 2.4 100.0 2.2 95.4 2.4 100.0 0.9 97.0 2.2 100.0 1.5 96.1 2.4 100.0 0.9 96.7 2.4 100.0 0.9 96.7 2.4 100.0

1.3 98.6 0.1 100.0 0.9 96.7 2.4 100.0 2.5 96.9 0.5 100.0 0.1 99.4 0.5 100.0 3.5 96.0 0.5 100.0 0.2 99.3 0.5 100.0 0.3 99.1 0.6 100.0

2.8 95.5 1.8 100.0 1.3 96.8 1.9 100.0 1.9 96.4 1.7 100.0 1.9 96.4 1.7 100.0 2.0 96.2 1.7 100.0 0.7 97.7 1.6 100.0 1.9 96.5 1.6 100.0

2.4 96.1 1.6 100.0 1.6 96.8 1.3 100.0 4.1 94.6 1.4 100.0 1.1 97.7 1.2 100.0 2.4 96.3 1.3 100.0 1.0 97.6 1.4 100.0 1.1 97.6 1.3 100.0

1.2 98.5 0.3 100.0 0.5 97.8 1.8 100.0 1.1 97.8 1.1 100.0 0.6 98.3 1.1 100.0 2.6 96.1 1.3 100.0

2.0 97.8 0.3 100.0 0.7 98.5 0.8 100.0 1.5 98.2 0.3 100.0 0.7 99.0 0.3 100.0 1.8 97.9 0.3 100.0 0.3 99.2 0.5 100.0 0.3 99.3 0.4 100.0

2.3 95.3 2.4 100.0 0.6 96.7 2.7 100.0 2.0 95.4 2.7 100.0 0.4 97.2 2.4 100.0 2.4 94.9 2.7 100.0 0.4 96.8 2.7 100.0 0.5 96.7 2.7 100.0

99.2 0.8 100.0 99.2 0.8 100.0

59

EWS - Q3
Table Ib During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of....
18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 % % Burglary at home Yes No DK/NA 1.5 98.5 2.5 96.6 0.9 100.0 0.7 98.2 1.1 100.0 1.6 97.5 0.9 100.0 1.9 97.3 0.9 100.0 2.1 97.0 0.9 100.0 0.3 98.9 0.9 100.0 0.9 98.2 0.9 100.0 3.2 93.8 3.0 100.0 1.8 95.1 3.0 100.0 3.5 93.5 3.0 100.0 1.8 95.7 2.5 100.0 3.3 93.5 3.1 100.0 1.6 95.3 3.1 100.0 1.8 95.0 3.1 100.0 1.0 99.0 0.0 100.0 0.6 98.7 0.8 100.0 1.1 98.8 0.0 100.0 1.0 98.8 0.2 100.0 0.6 98.7 0.6 100.0 1.8 98.0 0.2 100.0 1.1 98.9 100.0 1.6 98.4 100.0 1.7 98.2 0.1 100.0 0.3 99.0 0.1 100.0 4.7 95.1 0.3 100.0 0.3 99.6 0.1 100.0 1.1 98.8 0.1 100.0 0.3 99.5 0.3 100.0 0.3 99.6 0.1 100.0 1.2 98.3 0.4 100.0 0.5 97.4 2.1 100.0 2.2 96.8 0.9 100.0 3.1 95.4 1.6 100.0 1.4 96.6 2.0 100.0 1.9 96.6 1.5 100.0 0.9 97.5 1.6 100.0 2.0 96.4 1.6 100.0 0.9 97.4 1.6 100.0 1.8 96.6 1.6 100.0 36 - 50 Jun. 2008 %

ANNEX

Sep 2008 %

Mar. 2008 %

Sep 2008 %

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 % % % 1.8 96.1 2.0 100.0 0.9 97.1 2.0 100.0 1.7 96.3 2.0 100.0 0.1 97.9 2.0 100.0 2.2 95.8 2.0 100.0 0.2 97.8 2.0 100.0 0.2 97.8 2.0 100.0

TOTAL 100.0 Burglary at workplace Yes 0.9 No 96.1 DK/NA 2.9 TOTAL 100.0 Pickpocketing Yes 1.7 No 97.1 DK/NA 1.2 TOTAL 100.0 Car theft Yes 1.1 No 97.8 DK/NA 1.2 TOTAL 100.0 Theft of other valuables Yes 5.4 No 93.4 DK/NA 1.2 TOTAL 100.0 Scam/Con Yes 0.2 No 99.2 DK/NA 0.6 TOTAL 100.0 Blackmail Yes 0.4 No 98.9 DK/NA 0.7 TOTAL 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

100.0 0.0 100.0 1.5 98.5 0.0 100.0

99.1 0.9 100.0 1.9 96.9 1.2 100.0

100.0 0.0 100.0

99.7 0.3 100.0

98.9 1.1 100.0

100.0 0.0 100.0

100.0 100.0

98.9 1.1 100.0

60

ANNEX
Table Ic During the past three months, have (personally or a family member) been a victim of.... (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

SRU - EWS

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj.

Min. Maj.

Min. Maj.

Min. Maj. 0.3 97.1 99.4 2.9 0.3 100.0 100.0 0.9 96.2 2.9 100.0 2.0 95.1 2.9 100.0 1.4 97.6 1.0 100.0 2.7 95.0 2.3 100.0

Min.

Maj.

Min.

Maj.

Min. Maj. 5.0 90.0 4.9 100.0 0.5 94.5 4.9 100.0 3.1 92.0 4.9 100.0 0.6 99.0 0.4 100.0 0.1 97.2 2.6 100.0 0.7 98.5 0.8 100.0

Min.

Maj.

Min. Maj. 1.9 100.0 98.1 100.0 100.0 1.1 1.2 98.9 98.3 0.2 100.0 100.0 1.3 3.0 98.7 96.8 0.2 100.0 100.0 1.1 100.0 98.7 0.2 100.0 100.0 2.1 2.5 97.9 97.2 0.2 100.0 100.0 0.9 100.0 98.9 0.2 100.0 100.0 1.1 100.0 98.7 0.2 100.0 100.0

Min.

Burglary at home Yes 1.8 3.5 3.2 4.3 2.3 No 98.2 96.5 96.2 93.8 94.1 DK/NA 0.7 1.8 3.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Burglary at workplace Yes 1.0 1.0 3.8 0.7 No 97.1 100.0 98.3 94.4 95.9 DK/NA 2.0 0.7 1.8 3.4 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Pickpocketing Yes 2.4 3.5 2.1 5.0 3.1 No 97.2 96.5 97.2 93.2 93.5 DK/NA 0.4 0.7 1.8 3.4 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Car theft Yes 0.7 1.6 2.5 0.5 No 98.9 100.0 97.8 95.7 96.6 DK/NA 0.4 0.7 1.8 2.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Theft of other valuables Yes 3.1 6.5 2.7 8.1 2.1 No 96.5 93.5 96.6 90.7 94.5 DK/NA 0.4 0.7 1.2 3.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Scam/Con Yes 0.1 0.9 3.1 0.5 No 99.4 100.0 98.2 95.1 96.0 DK/NA 0.4 0.9 1.9 3.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Blackmail Yes 0.1 1.8 3.1 0.6 No 99.4 99.3 97.4 95.1 95.9 DK/NA 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.8 3.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

3.9 1.8 94.5 96.9 1.7 1.2 100.0 100.0 2.1 1.8 93.4 97.2 4.5 1.0 100.0 100.0 4.8 3.3 93.5 95.7 1.7 1.0 100.0 100.0 3.8 0.9 94.5 98.1 1.7 1.0 100.0 100.0 6.0 2.2 90.3 96.8 3.8 1.0 100.0 100.0 1.6 0.7 96.8 98.7 1.7 0.6 100.0 100.0 1.3 0.7 97.1 98.7 1.7 0.6 100.0 100.0

7.2 4.1 90.2 92.9 2.6 2.9 100.0 100.0 6.2 91.7 2.1 100.0 7.4 90.5 2.1 100.0 2.5 94.5 2.9 100.0 3.2 93.7 3.2 100.0

1.1 1.7 98.9 96.9 1.4 100.0 100.0 0.7 94.4 97.0 5.6 2.3 100.0 100.0 0.9 100.0 97.8 1.4 100.0 100.0 1.1 100.0 97.5 1.4 100.0 100.0 0.9 97.7 1.4 100.0 100.0 1.1 98.9

99.3 0.7 100.0

99.3 0.7 100.0 1.1 98.2 0.7 100.0

0.5 97.1 97.2 2.9 2.3 100.0 100.0 2.3 97.1 95.0 2.9 2.6 100.0 100.0 0.1 97.1 99.2 2.9 0.7 100.0 100.0

6.2 1.0 91.7 96.1 2.1 2.9 100.0 100.0 8.8 89.1 2.1 100.0 3.5 93.6 2.9 100.0

0.5 94.5 99.2 4.9 0.8 100.0 100.0 3.1 95.1 95.9 4.9 1.0 100.0 100.0 0.5 94.6 99.0 4.9 1.0 100.0 100.0 0.2 95.1 98.8 4.9 1.0 100.0 100.0

99.3 0.7 100.0 0.9 98.4 0.7 100.0

6.9 1.2 91.0 95.6 2.1 3.2 100.0 100.0 6.2 1.0 91.7 96.1 2.1 2.9 100.0 100.0

100.0 98.6 1.4 100.0 100.0 0.4 100.0 98.2 1.4 100.0 100.0

99.3 0.7 100.0

97.1 98.9 2.9 1.1 100.0 100.0

99.3 0.7 100.0

61

EWS - Q3
Table IIa During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)
Gender Urban
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

ANNEX

Rural
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Male
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

Female
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Yes 7.5 4.4 6.6 2.7 No 92.4 95.3 90.7 96.8 DK/NA 0.1 0.3 2.6 0.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

5.5 93.8 0.7 100.0

3.7 95.2 1.0 100.0

5.9 93.4 0.6 100.0

5.9 93.8 0.3 100.0

6.5 91.3 2.2 100.0

3.7 96.3 0.1 100.0

4.2 95.1 0.7 100.0

3.5 95.2 1.3 100.0

Table IIb During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)
Age 36 - 50
Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008

18 - 35
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008

51 +
Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

% # % # % # Yes 5.0 24.1 4.6 19.9 3.5 19.2 No 94.8 500.6 95.4 533.1 94.5 319.8 DK/NA 0.1 11.4 2.0 1.9 TOTAL 100.0 524.7 100.0 564.4 100.0 341.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

% # % 5.6 17.5 5.3 93.8 310.0 94.3 0.6 1.2 0.4 100.0 328.6 100.0

# % 27.7 8.5 293.8 90.6 2.8 0.9 324.3 100.0

# 25.7 604.5 2.8 633.1

% # % 4.1 34.2 5.5 95.5 585.1 94.0 0.4 3.0 0.5 100.0 622.3 100.0

# % 25.8 4.4 551.2 93.7 11.1 1.9 588.1 100.0

# 21.0 3.3 24.4

Table IIc During the past three months, have you or a family member requested police assistance for any reason? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Yes 6.5 9.2 6.6 11.2 5.9 No 93.1 90.8 93.1 86.3 93.1 DK/NA 0.4 0.3 2.5 1.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. Maj. 7.8 5.0 92.2 94.8 0.2 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 4.8 4.1 94.5 94.7 0.7 1.2 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 7.8 3.1 91.6 90.8 0.7 6.1 100.0 100.0

Min. 5.3 93.1 1.5 100.0

Maj. 2.7 96.9 0.4 100.0

Min. Maj. 2.2 3.9 97.8 95.8 0.3 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 3.2 4.6 96.8 94.2 1.2 100.0 100.0

Min. 3.3 96.7 100.0

Table IIIa If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%)
Gender Urban Not at all satisfied 37.6 84.3 Generally dissatisfied 31.3 11.7 Generally satisfied 15.4 Totally satisfied 15.6 DK/NA 4.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 24.5 46.2 23.7 5.6 100.0 41.9 27.3 15.0 15.8 100.0 Rural 59.6 34.7 18.7 38.9 33.7 8.6 100.0 33.7 31.9 11.0 23.4 100.0 Male 76.8 20.6 33.0 37.4 25.6 4.0 100.0 47.2 27.1 22.1 3.6 100.0 Female 58.2 33.5 2.6 53.2 32.2 12.0 100.0
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

5.7 100.0

2.6 100.0

8.3 100.0

62

ANNEX
Table IIIb If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%)
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 43.0 64.3 24.4 29.2 21.0 11.6 6.5 100.0 100.0

SRU - EWS

Not at all satisfied Generally dissatisfied Generally satisfied Totally satisfied DK/NA TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 44.1 77.5 6.9 31.5 22.5 36.9 12.0 48.3 12.3 8.0

Sep 2008 38.8 41.8 16.6 2.8 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 30.8 65.2 32.7 27.0 14.4 22.1 7.8 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 15.7 49.2 24.6 10.5 100.0

Table IIIc If you have requested police assistance, how satisfied were you with the police response? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Not at all satisfied 38.7 29.3 76.5 82.8 21.3 Generally dissatisfied 34.5 37.6 23.5 11.7 55.0 Generally satisfied 9.8 25.1 19.5 Totally satisfied 17.0 4.1 DK/NA 8.0 5.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Min. Maj. 45.1 77.1 28.9 22.9 26.0

Min. Maj. 45.1 46.7 26.2 53.3 22.7 5.9 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 86.8 11.4 13.2 23.5 39.4 25.7 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 31.7 8.9 20.8 91.1 25.2 22.4 100.0 100.0

Min.

Maj. 61.6 21.8

100.0 16.6 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 100.0 25.9 31.0 36.1 7.0 100.0 100.0

Min. 33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0

100.0 100.0

Table IVa In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%)
Gender Urban Yes 2.1 1.8 No 97.6 97.6 DK/NA 0.3 0.6 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 0.9 98.6 0.4 100.0 1.9 97.8 0.4 100.0 Rural 2.1 96.8 1.1 100.0 0.7 98.2 1.1 100.0 2.7 96.8 0.5 100.0 Male 2.0 97.4 0.6 100.0 1.1 97.7 1.3 100.0 1.3 98.6 0.2 100.0 Female 1.9 96.9 1.2 100.0 0.6 99.0 0.4 100.0
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Table IVb In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%)
Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 0.7 1.8 98.3 96.9 1.0 1.3 100.0 100.0

18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Yes 3.2 2.1 0.5 No 96.8 97.2 98.0 DK/NA 0.0 0.8 1.4 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Sep 2008 1.1 97.8 1.1 100.0

51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 1.6 2.0 98.2 97.6 0.2 0.3 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 0.9 99.0 0.2 100.0

63

EWS - Q3
Table IVc In the past three months, have you or a family member been arrested without warrant? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

ANNEX

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Yes 2.6 6.2 0.9 No 99.3 96.9 92.0 97.9 DK/NA 0.7 0.5 1.9 1.2 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Maj. 2.6 97.4

Min. Maj. 0.9 0.2 99.1 99.0 0.8 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 2.5 1.6 95.8 96.2 1.7 2.2 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 9.7 1.1 88.9 97.5 1.4 1.4 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 1.9 99.5 97.5 0.5 0.5 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 3.8 1.4 96.2 97.6 1.0 100.0 100.0

Min. Maj. 0.6 100.0 99.1 0.3 100.0 100.0

Min. 1.1 98.9 100.0

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 Urban Yes 10.6 12.0 No 86.9 86.0 DK/NA 2.4 1.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research 13.7 82.8 3.4 100.0 4.3 94.0 1.7 100.0 Rural 10.1 88.5 1.4 100.0 4.1 94.5 1.4 100.0 8.6 89.4 2.0 100.0 Male 11.9 86.4 1.7 100.0 10.6 87.1 2.3 100.0 5.5 92.5 2.0 100.0 Female 10.0 88.4 1.6 100.0 6.0 91.8 2.3 100.0
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Table Vb 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.)? (%)
18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Yes 12.0 14.1 12.1 No 86.1 84.2 84.4 DK/NA 1.9 1.7 3.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research Age 36 - 50 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 4.7 13.3 91.6 84.9 3.7 1.7 100.0 100.0 51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 4.1 7.4 94.7 91.2 1.2 1.4 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 10.0 88.8 1.2 100.0

Sep 2008 3.5 94.8 1.7 100.0

Table Vc 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.)? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Maj. Min. Yes 7.4 5.3 8.4 8.7 10.1 8.9 No 89.9 90.2 90.4 86.3 88.5 87.3 DK/NA 2.7 4.6 1.2 5.0 1.4 3.8 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Public opinion poll conducted for EWS by Prism Research

Maj. 6.8 91.1 2.1 100.0

Min. 8.8 89.5 1.7 100.0

Maj. 10.0 86.0 4.0 100.0

Min. 17.7 80.5 1.7 100.0

Maj. 3.2 91.2 5.6 100.0

Min. 10.1 86.8 3.1 100.0

Maj. 7.0 91.7 1.3 100.0

Maj. 14.8 95.6 83.8 4.4 1.4 100.0 100.0

Min.

Min. Maj. 2.1 8.2 95.3 89.5 2.5 2.3 100.0 100.0

Min. 2.9 96.4 0.7 100.0

64

ANNEX
Table VIa Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%)
Gender Male

SRU - EWS

Urban Police Yes 66.6 No 21.9 Not applicable 0.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 7.1 DK/NA 4.1 100.0 52.4 25.3 1.5 9.2 11.7 100.0 54.7 28.0 0.4 10.8 6.1 100.0 48.9 32.7 0.6 11.2 6.5 100.0 59.3 22.1 0.6 9.5 8.6 100.0 54.2 27.0 0.7 9.7 8.3 100.0

Rural

Female

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Total Courts

51.3 31.7 1.9 9.2 5.9 100.0 45.9 35.7 2.3 9.8 6.2 100.0

53.9 26.1 1.0 9.5 9.5 100.0 49.6 29.9 2.4 9.4 8.8 100.0

59.6 25.0 0.9 8.0 6.5 100.0 55.4 28.1 0.8 8.5 7.2 100.0

50.1 33.3 2.6 8.5 5.6 100.0 47.8 35.6 2.3 8.5 5.7 100.0

53.1 30.1 1.1 7.7 8.1 100.0 46.7 34.5 2.6 8.6 7.6 100.0

65.2 19.1 0.1 8.8 6.8 100.0 60.4 24.0 0.3 8.9 6.4 100.0

53.3 24.8 0.9 9.9 11.1 100.0 46.8 30.1 2.1 10.1 10.8 100.0

55.4 23.9 0.4 12.3 8.0 100.0 51.7 27.9 0.7 11.7 8.0 100.0

Yes 62.9 49.1 No 24.6 28.9 Not applicable 0.4 2.1 Neither approve nor disapprove 7.3 8.7 DK/NA 4.8 11.1 Total 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

Table VIb Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%)
Age Police Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA Total Courts Yes No Not applicable Neither approve nor disapprove DK/NA 61.4 24.8 0.4 6.3 7.2 100.0 51.5 29.2 2.0 8.0 9.3 100.0 46.1 34.6 3.0 7.4 8.9 100.0 52.8 26.9 0.1 8.9 11.3 100.0 50.0 29.7 0.5 8.5 11.3 100.0 59.2 25.4 0.9 8.7 5.7 100.0 57.1 28.4 0.7 8.1 5.7 100.0 54.7 28.5 2.1 10.6 4.1 100.0 47.4 33.8 1.5 12.4 4.9 100.0 55.5 24.5 0.2 13.9 6.1 100.0 50.1 31.1 0.2 13.1 5.6 100.0 65.0 17.8 0.4 10.1 6.7 100.0 59.6 21.8 0.4 10.9 7.3 100.0 51.1 28.9 1.4 9.0 9.7 100.0 48.7 30.9 2.0 8.9 9.5 100.0 55.0 28.2 1.6 9.1 6.0 100.0 48.2 32.5 3.5 10.2 5.7 100.0 18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 36 - 50 Jun. 2008 51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Sep 2008

Mar. 2008

Sep 2008

56.4 29.5 0.6 6.5 6.9 Total 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

65

EWS - Q3
Table VIc Do you have confidence in the work of the ...? (%)
AREA Croat majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

ANNEX

Bosniak majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj.

Min. Maj.

Min. Maj.

Min. Maj. 39.1 52.6 43.9 17.9 1.0 5.8 15.8 11.2 12.6 100.0 100.0 37.1 49.4 46.9 20.6 2.5 5.8 15.5 10.3 12.0 100.0 100.0

Min. 53.6 30.3 2.0

Maj. 49.1 30.3

Min.

Maj.

Min. Maj. 40.8 74.5 28.4 13.3 0.4 13.9 8.2 16.8 3.6 100.0 100.0 35.6 69.1 31.8 18.5 0.5 0.4 15.4 8.5 16.8 3.5 100.0 100.0

Min.

Maj.

Min. Maj. 76.8 66.9 15.2 13.3 0.9 4.5 11.0 3.5 7.9 100.0 100.0 67.5 60.3 18.6 18.8 4.7 1.5 4.5 12.0 4.8 7.4 100.0 100.0

Min. 77.3 13.3

Police Yes 53.5 55.3 34.8 51.1 46.1 No 31.7 30.3 41.9 31.0 39.5 Not applicable 0.3 0.8 3.1 2.4 0.4 Neither approve nor disapprove 6.8 7.6 7.3 5.1 7.3 DK/NA 7.7 6.0 13.0 10.4 6.6 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Courts Yes 49.4 50.6 33.3 47.7 41.8 No 35.0 33.2 42.1 34.4 42.8 Not applicable 0.8 3.8 2.4 1.9 Neither approve nor disapprove 7.3 8.6 7.6 5.1 6.8 DK/NA 8.3 6.8 13.1 10.4 6.7 Total 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

44.4 39.3 44.8 26.1 1.0 1.4 6.5 18.6 3.3 14.5 100.0 100.0 44.4 35.8 45.8 30.6 1.4 6.5 18.1 3.3 14.1 100.0 100.0

78.6 70.8 12.6 14.6 0.9 7.9 8.9 0.8 4.9 100.0 100.0 76.7 65.2 14.5 19.2 1.2 7.9 9.7 0.8 4.6 100.0 100.0

5.7 16.4 8.4 4.2 100.0 100.0 44.5 37.0 40.5 45.2 1.4 4.9 13.7 8.7 4.2 100.0 100.0

6.2 3.2 100.0 68.0 22.2 0.7 5.1 3.9 100.0

Table VIIa How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions? (%)
Gender Urban Police Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very TOTAL Courts Not at all Slightly To some degree Quite Very 2.7 16.8 21.4 24.7 34.3 100.0 2.8 9.2 20.9 21.6 45.4 100.0 1.1 18.0 19.2 20.2 41.4 100.0 1.0 15.7 16.7 20.3 46.4 100.0 2.0 14.2 17.2 26.9 39.6 100.0 1.9 14.7 14.4 21.8 47.2 100.0 2.0 12.4 17.4 20.9 47.3 100.0 2.8 10.1 12.9 20.8 53.5 100.0 3.3 16.1 18.6 22.0 40.0 100.0 2.4 12.9 18.6 24.3 41.8 100.0 2.7 14.5 17.2 24.1 41.5 100.0 2.6 12.5 16.1 23.4 45.3 100.0 3.0 11.9 19.6 18.2 47.2 100.0 2.7 9.9 14.9 19.9 52.6 100.0 1.8 16.2 19.7 19.2 43.0 100.0 1.2 11.8 19.2 21.5 46.2 100.0 1.9 16.2 20.7 27.9 33.3 100.0 1.7 15.8 18.1 24.3 40.0 100.0 1.7 10.1 18.2 24.3 45.7 100.0 1.9 7.4 13.7 25.5 51.5 100.0 3.0 17.6 17.9 23.2 38.2 100.0 2.4 16.3 16.4 23.6 41.4 100.0 Rural Male Female
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

2.5 1.7 13.4 6.8 20.8 16.0 26.7 25.2 36.6 50.3 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

66

ANNEX
Table VIIb

SRU - EWS

How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions? (%)
18 - 35 Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Police Not at all 1.9 2.6 Slightly 13.5 10.4 To some degree 18.7 20.3 Quite 26.6 24.2 Very 39.2 42.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Courts Not at all 1.6 1.5 Slightly 11.4 7.9 To some degree 18.5 14.6 Quite 24.0 25.4 Very 44.4 50.5 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research Age 36 - 50 Jun. 2008 1.8 8.3 20.7 18.9 50.4 100.0 2.6 7.6 16.5 21.0 52.2 100.0 51 + Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008 2.7 2.6 2.5 17.4 13.2 18.0 20.2 16.7 22.9 25.5 19.6 20.1 34.2 47.9 36.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 2.7 3.0 2.3 16.6 10.2 15.6 17.7 12.4 18.6 22.6 20.6 23.0 40.4 53.8 40.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sep 2008 3.2 15.3 15.9 21.4 44.3 100.0 1.9 13.2 16.2 23.0 45.7 100.0

Mar. 2008 2.3 14.5 17.4 25.9 39.9 100.0 2.1 14.2 13.9 25.9 43.9 100.0

Sep 2008 0.8 18.1 17.0 23.1 41.0 100.0 0.8 13.0 19.1 21.1 46.0 100.0

Table VIIc How widespread do you think corruption, meaning taking bribes or abuse of office for personal gain, is in the following institutions? (%)
Bosniak majority areas
Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

AREA Croat majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Serb majority areas

Mar. 2008 Jun. 2008 Sep 2008

Maj.

Min. Maj.

Min. Maj.

Min. Maj. 4.4 16.1 25.5 26.1 27.9 100.0 3.9 12.0 25.6 25.6 32.9 100.0

Min. 0.3 18.3 17.9 15.7 47.8 100.0

Maj. 3.0 16.0 24.0 33.4 23.7 100.0 5.6 6.7 13.3 30.7 43.7 100.0

Min. 5.8 8.0 8.4 39.9 37.9 100.0 5.5 7.5 8.5 37.3 41.2 100.0

Maj. 2.6 11.1 22.6 27.8 35.9 100.0 2.6 10.6 20.6 27.2 39.1 100.0

Min. Maj. 1.3 10.8 14.1 31.7 42.1 100.0 2.0 8.3 11.1 31.1 47.6 100.0 1.8 18.7 20.6 29.9 29.1 100.0 1.5 18.5 17.8 26.8 35.3 100.0

Min. 3.7 21.0 23.2 28.0 24.1 100.0

Maj. 0.8 11.5 24.1 23.7 40.0 100.0 0.5 9.7 17.9 27.1 44.8 100.0

Min. Maj. 2.7 2.0 24.4 23.3 20.1 22.9 34.8 22.9 18.0 28.9 100.0 100.0 4.1 1.5 33.0 20.8 14.7 20.9 22.1 27.0 26.1 29.9 100.0 100.0

Min.

Police Not at all 0.8 2.6 3.1 2.7 Slightly 12.3 15.0 8.6 13.3 11.8 To some degree 15.3 18.1 12.8 16.7 13.5 Quite 22.8 18.0 15.5 15.9 18.1 Very 48.8 48.9 60.5 51.0 53.9 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Courts Not at all 0.8 1.7 3.1 2.0 Slightly 11.0 9.6 7.6 10.9 7.9 To some degree 13.4 13.7 11.4 13.6 13.6 Quite 21.4 24.0 16.5 19.6 17.4 Very 53.5 52.8 62.8 52.8 59.0 TOTAL 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: EWS opinion poll conducted by PRISM Research

2.2 11.3 21.5 65.0 100.0

34.2 27.8 20.3 17.6 100.0 4.2 27.3 20.8 23.8 24.0 100.0

1.1 13.6 21.7 63.7 100.0

11.4 16.9 14.9 56.7 100.0

17.9 24.6 31.1 26.3 100.0

67