men is cuite large: 48% in the<sup>mining municipalitiescomparedto64%inthe Ukraineurban</sup> sample. The structure of employment by<sup>agereveals lowerlevelsof employmentin the mining</sup> municipalities for all age groups,<sup>mostsignificantlyfortheyoungestgroup(18-29),36%of</sup> whom in the mining sample reported<sup>beingemployedcomparedtoalmost50%inthenational</sup> sample.

146. Another indication of the relatively<sup>morecomplicated employmentsituation inthe</sup> mining municipalities was given<sup>bytheanswerstothequestionabout mainsourcesof income</sup> (Table 6). For 38% of respondents<sup>inthesampleof miningmunicipalitiesandfor57%of</sup> respondents in the national urban<sup>sample, amainsourceofincomeiswages.Thisstriking</sup> difference is largely a function of<sup>the preponderanceof older individualsin the populationof the</sup> mining municipalities; when age<sup>iscontrolledfor and results for the working age population only</sup> considered, the corresponding numbers<sup>are61%and72%.Thisdifferencewouldbe partially</sup> accounted for by lower levels of<sup>employment inthe miningtowns,andcould alsoreflectlower</sup> average wages in the mining towns<sup>thanin the othercities in thecountry.</sup>

**Table 6. Main sources of income**<sup>(% of respondents;multipleresponsespossible.)</sup>

|||wages<br>|social<br>benefits<br>|produce<br>from<br>gardens<br>|secondor<br>occasional<br>jobs<br>|own<br>business<br>|helpfrom<br>relatives<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||||||
||mining|60.7|37.8|15.6|14.1|3.0|.|
|Workingage<br>**adults**|towns<br>urban<br>Ukraine*|72.2<br>|32.2<br>|26.7<br>|12.9<br>|4.0<br>|i6.0<br>|
||mining|13.5|98.4|10.7|0.8|0.0|2.0|
|Retired|towns<br>urban<br>Ukraine*<br>|20.1<br>|97.1<br>|26.7<br>|2.2<br>|0.3<br>|3.1<br>|
||mining|38.3|66.5|13.2|7.8|1.6|5.4|
|**Total**|towns__|||||||
||urban<br>Ukraine*|57.2|50.9|26.7|9.9|2.9|12.3|

* excluding large cities

147. Relatedly, given the higher unemployment<sup>intheminingtowns(aswellalevelof</sup> occupational diseases that is likely<sup>to be higher),it isnot surprisingthat a greater percentageof</sup> working age, respondents in<sup>1theminingtownscited"socialbenefits"asamainsourceof the</sup> family's income (38% compared<sup>to32%inthenational urbansample).Respondentsinthe</sup> mining sample were also considerably<sup>less likely thanrespondentsinthe nationalurbansample</sup> to name produce from garden plots<sup>asa main sourceof income(13%versus27%).It isalsoof</sup> note-that respondents in the national<sup>urbansample areroughlytwiceaslikely as respondentsin</sup> the mining sample to receive<sup>helpfromrelatives(12%comparedto5%),whichisconsistent</sup> with what is known about the history<sup>of thesettlementof the mining townsand themore limited</sup> nature of the support networks of<sup>extendedfamiliesof thoseremaining in the mining towns.</sup> 148. Job stability including payment<sup>stabilityis animportantcharacteristicofemployment</sup> conditions. The survey shows<sup>that the percentage of respondentsreportingwage arrearsis higher</sup> in the mining municipalities: 28%<sup>ofemployedrespondentsfrom thissample saidthattheir</sup>

> **34** The difference is statistically<sup>significantat5%.</sup>

43