CC BY
32Социально-экономическая дифференциация населения России в условиях научно-технического прогресса
о сч о сч
!Л
О Ш
m
X
<
m О X X
Хаустова Карина Владимировна,
соискатель, Финансовый университет при Правительстве РФ, khaustova.karina@mail.ru,
Цхададзе Нелли Викторовна,
доктор экономических наук, профессор, Финансовый университет при Правительстве РФ, nelly-vic@mail.ru
Екатериновская Мария Алексеевна,
кандидат экономических наук, доцент, Финансовый университет при Правительстве РФ, efcos@mail.ru
В статье рассмотрены оценка и анализ социально-экономической дифференциации и уровня благосостояния населения России. Постоянный анализ статистики, характеризующей неравенство и бедность, позволяет органам государственной власти принимать необходимые меры социальной поддержки населения, в том числе превентивные, и обеспечивать мониторинг реализации национальных целей и стратегических задач развития Российской Федерации. Автор рассмотрел основные методы количественной оценки неравенства и уровня бедности, к которым относятся такие показатели как: распределение денежных доходов по процентным группам населения, коэффициент фондов, индекс Джини, распределение численности населения по размерам соотношения денежных доходов и величины прожиточного минимума, а также другие показатели. Автор исследовал проблемы бедности как следствия неравномерного распределения доходов и общественных благ среди населения. Все более важным становится поиск новой концепции социально-экономического развития Российской Федерации, которая сократит социально-экономическое расслоение общества и обеспечит устойчивые темпы экономического роста.
Ключевые слова: благосостояние населения, дифференциация доходов, бедность, распределение денежных доходов, социально-экономическое неравенство населения.
Introduction
The accumulation and expansion of knowledge, advanced scientific discoveries and inventions, which a few years ago seemed fantastic, incessant and rapid improvement of technology, the digital world and means of communication, which allow people from different ends of the planet to be so close and at the same time so distant from each other - All of these are the reality of the scientific and technological progress of the modern world.
The importance and benefits of scientific and technological progress cannot be underestimated, but there are also many obvious shortcomings and its disastrous consequences, which include: exhaustion of resources, global environmental problems that can lead to a global catastrophe and are posed above the problems of nuclear war, rapid obsolescence of professional skills and abilities, the socio-economic stratification of society that increase each passing day. This article will address the last of these problems, as the differentiation of incomes of the population increases, and, as a result, inequality and poverty rise.
Both economists and statisticians, sociologists, politicians and philosophers consider the problem of unevenness in the distribution of monetary incomes and public goods for a long time. Assessment and analysis of socio-economic differentiation and the level of well-being of the population become particularly relevant in the conditions of scientific and technological progress, because rising inequality and polarization of society can lead to significant social, economic, and political upheavals in modern Russia. Constant analysis of statistics characterizing inequality and poverty allows state authorities to take the necessary measures of social support for the population, including preventive ones, and to monitor the implementation of national goals and strategic objectives of the development of the Russian Federation.
The relevance of this work is also determined by the compliance of the chosen subject with a number of strategic goals and objectives, which are formulated in the Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018 and in Presidential Decree No. 204 of May 7, 2018 "On the national goals and strategic objectives of the Russian Federation on period until 2024" and should be achieved and resolved already at the turn of 20242025. These include providing the growth rate of the Russian economy higher than the world ones, increasing the gross domestic product per capita by one and a half times and halving the number of the poor.
Methodology
The works of the classics of economic theory, the works of foreign and domestic scientists on the problems of economic growth and development, distribution relations and socio-economic differentiation were used as the methodological basis of this work.
The legal basis were the legislative and regulatory acts of the Russian Federation, the data of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), including the microdata base of the
Comprehensive Survey of the Living Standards of the Population, as well as statistical data and special survey data contained in foreign and domestic literature.
The authors also used such theoretical methods of scientific knowledge as the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the method of idealization, the method of formalization and others. Methods of comparison, modeling and statistical analysis were used as experimental ones.
Results
Macroeconomic indicators characterizing inequality in the distribution of monetary incomes and the level of welfare of the population (distribution of monetary incomes by percentage of the population, the ratio of funds, the Gini index, the distribution of the population by the size of the ratio of monetary incomes and the subsistence minimum, as well as other indicators) being regullary published by the State Statistics Service of the Russian Federation (Rosstat) remain the main method for quantifying inequality and poverty. The distribution of total monetary incomes and the characteristics of the differentiation of monetary incomes of the population of the Russian Federation are presented in table 1 in retrospect from 1995 to 2017.
Table 1
Distribution of total money incomes and characteristics of the differentiation of money incomes of the population of the Russian Federation
including by 20% population
groups, in %: Decile coefficient of
Total cash 1st (with the lowest income) 5th (with the highest income) Gini coeffici
income 2-nd 3-rd 4-th funds, in times ent
1995 100 6,1 10,8 15,2 21,6 46,3 13,5 0,387
2000 100 5,9 10,4 15,1 21,9 46,7 13,9 0,395
2005 100 5,4 10,1 15,1 22,7 46,7 15,2 0,409
2010 100 5,2 9,8 14,8 22,5 47,7 16,6 0,421
2011 100 5,2 9,9 14,9 22,6 47,4 16,2 0,417
2012 100 5,2 9,8 14,9 22,5 47,6 16,4 0,420
2013 100 5,2 9,8 14,9 22,5 47,6 16,3 0,419
2014 100 5,2 9,9 14,9 22,6 47,4 16,0 0,416
2015 100 5,3 10,0 15,0 22,6 47,1 15,7 0,413
2016 100 5,3 10,1 15,0 22,6 47,0 15,5 0,412
2017 100 5,4 10,1 15,1 22,6 46,8 15,3 0,410
Source: Population. Inequality and poverty // Federal State Statistics Service. [Electronic resource] URL:
http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statis-tics/population/poverty/#
Statistics show that the Russian Federation clearly refers to countries with a high degree of inequality - almost half of all incomes of the population (divided into 20 percent groups) over the past decades belongs to the fifth group with the highest incomes, the poorest (the first group with the lowest income) owns about 5 percent of total revenues. It is worth noting that the trend of increasing the concentration of incomes among the richest has continued since 1995 and only refracted in the last few years - from 47.6% of all incomes of the population in 2013, the share fell to 46.8% in 2017, but still remains unacceptably large.
The decile ratio of funds is a component of the group of income differentiation coefficients of the population. It describes how many times the average cash income level of 10% of the population with the highest incomes exceeds the average money income of 10% of the population with the
lowest incomes. In 1995, the level of money incomes of 10% of the richest population exceeded the level of incomes of 10% of the poorest population by 13.5 times, in 2017 it was already 15.3 times (URL: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/con-nect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/poverty/#, Population. Inequality and poverty, Federal State Statistics Service, 2019).
According to Rosstat, the Gini coefficient has not undergone fundamental changes since 1995 and even gradually decreased, reaching 0.41 in 2017, which is even slightly higher than the estimates of a number of international organizations in Russia. Official statistics attribute Russia to countries with a moderate degree of inequality, while according to other international analytical centers, Russia is the most unequal economy in the world, in which almost all wealth is owned by literally 1% of the population.
The study of socio-economic differentiation cannot do without the naturally emerging problem of poverty as a consequence of the uneven distribution of income and public goods among the population. The main indicator and the official "poverty line" is the subsistence minimum, and the poor are those whose monthly income is below the established subsistence minimum.
However, the traditional statistical toolkit assesses the financial situation of the population, but does not fully characterize the real level of poverty and socio-economic differentiation, since it does not allow to assess the social aspects of the population: housing conditions and intentions to improve them; working conditions; health status and access to quality health care; education; the presence of children; opinion on the living conditions in the village; transport service and communication; recreation.
This information on socio-demographic problems is collected by Rosstat as part of federal statistical observations. Thus, the Comprehensive Monitoring of the Living Conditions of the Population is organized in all the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and covers about 60 thousand households. The purpose of this observation is to obtain official statistical information that will reflect the real living conditions of Russian households (families).
Comprehensive observation of the living conditions of the population (hereinafter referred to as CMLC) is carried out on the basis of a personal survey of members of households (respondents) at their place of residence, thus the household itself gives a subjective assessment of its welfare. The CMLC microdata base consists of approximately 60 thousand observations (interviewed households) and about 300 variables (questions asked to respondent households).
Table 2 "The financial situation of households by type of settlement" presents the information on the CMLC for 2016 and 2018. Data analysis allows us to conclude that the situation has improved by the majority of criteria characterizing the differentiation of households by financial situation.
So, taking into account the incomes of all household members, in 2016 compared to 2018, 88.5% of the total number of respondents had the opportunity to pay for vital (most important) medicines (while in 2016 this share was 86.4 %), could cope with unexpected expenses (expenses for urgent repair of housing or replacement of durable goods, urgent medical services, and so on) - 45.7% (55.3% in 2016), replace the most simple furniture that has become unusable - 45.9% (37.6% in 2016) buy new clothes for family members as far as it wears out - 88.5% (85.5%), buying each family member two pairs of comfortable and seasonally
X X
o 00 A c.
X
00 m
o
io
2 O IO
o
o
CS
0
CS
in
01
O m m
X
<
m o x
X
suitable shoes (one for each season) - 63.8% (50.3%), eating meat, poultry or fish (or equivalent vegetarian food) every 2 days - 89.6% (91.5%), eating fruit at any time of the year - 78.4% (74.5%), inviting guests to a family celebration (birthday, New Year and other holidays) - 74.2% (70.5%), spending one week per year on vacation outside the house (including spending time in second dwelling, with relatives, friends) - 49.1% of respondents compared to 54.5% in 2016.
Thereafter, in 2018, 11% of the total number of respondents did not have the ability to pay for vital (most important) medicines, could not cope with unexpected expenses (expenses for urgent housing repairs or replacement of durable items, urgent medical services, etc.) - 52, 9%, could not replace the most basic furniture that has become unusable - 53.1%, could not buy family members new clothes as it wears out - 11.2%, could not buy each family member two pairs of comfortable and seasonally suitable shoes (one for each season) - 35.4%, could not allow eating meat, poultry or fish (or equivalent vegetarian food) every 2 days - 10.1%, could not eat fruit at any time of the year - 21.1%, could not invite guests to a family celebration (birthday, New Year and other holidays ) - 25.3%, could not spent a holiday week per year outside the house (including spending time in the second dwelling, with relatives, with friends) - 49.1% of households. 1.8% of the respondents were unable to carry out any of the above (URL:
http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/KOUZ16/index.html, Comprehensive observation of the living conditions of the population, Federal State Statistics Service, 2019).
Consideration of the differentiation by financial situation in terms of types of settlements suggests that in rural settlements the number of households that can meet all the needs in Table 2 is obviously less than in urban areas.
Table 2
All households urban areas - total rural areas - total
2016 2018 2016 2018 2016 2018
All households 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 § o
taking into account the incomes of all household members
having the opportunity to
pay for essential medicines 86,4 88,5 87,0 88,9 84,6 87,3
cope with unexpected expenses (the cost of urgent repairs to housing or the replacement of durable use, urgent medical services and so on) 53,3 45,7 55,3 47,2 47,1 41,0
replace the most basic furniture that has become unusable 37,6 45,9 39,5 47,2 31,7 41,5
buy new clothes for family members as it wears out 85,5 88,5 85,9 88,8 84,5 87,5
buy each family member two pairs of comfortable and seasonally-appropriate shoes (one for each season) 50,3 63,8 52,8 65,3 42,2 58,9
allow eating meat, poultry or fish (or equivalent vegetarian food) every 2 days 91,5 89,6 92,1 90,3 89,8 87,1
eat fruit any time at any time of the year 74,5 78,4 77,3 80,3 65,4 72,3
invite guests to a family celebration (birthday, New Year, etc.) 70,5 74,2 72,1 75,5 65,3 69,9
spend one week of vacation per year outside the home (including time spent in a second dwelling, with relatives or friends) 43,2 50,1 48,0 54,7 27,9 35,1
unable to
pay for essential medicines 12,1 11,0 11,3 10,5 14,6 12,3
cope with unexpected expenses (the cost of urgent repairs to housing or the replacement of durable use, urgent medical services and so on) 44,2 52,9 41,9 51,2 51,3 58,4
replace the most basic furniture that has become unusable 59,6 53,1 57,4 51,5 66,8 58,0
buy new clothes for family members as it wears out 13,6 11,2 13,2 10,9 14,7 12,4
buy each family member two pairs of comfortable and seasonally-appropriate shoes (one for each season) 48,0 35,4 45,3 33,8 56,6 40,8
allow eating meat, poultry or fish (or equivalent vegetarian food) every 2 days 7,9 10,1 7,3 9,3 9,9 12,8
eat fruit any time at any time of the year 24,4 21,1 21,4 19,2 33,9 27,5
invite guests to a family celebration (birthday, New Year, etc.) 28,0 25,3 26,2 23,9 33,7 29,8
spend one week of vacation per year outside the home (including time spent in a second dwelling, with relatives or friends) 54,5 49,1 49,4 44,3 70,6 64,6
unable to do any of the above 1,7 1,8 1,5 1,8 2,4 2,0
Source: Comprehensive observation of the living conditions of the population // Federal State Statistics Service. [Electronic resource] uRL: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/KOUZ16/index.html
As was already said in the introduction, the life and development of modern society in the conditions of scientific and technological progress have become unthinkable without a wide range of communications and television. Today, telecommunication technologies and the Internet allow us not only to erase the boundaries between states and people, but also to solve many problems in such areas as education, medicine, management and commerce.
Table 3 presents the information on the status of households' provision with communications and television by demographic and social groups in the Russian Federation in 2016. It is not surprising that 99% of households surveyed have a color TV, while 97.6% have a mobile phone. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, the absence of these objects seems unreal. At the same time, the presence of a landline phone is observed only in 47.3% of households surveyed, as there is a tendency to gradually stop using this type of communication, as it is replaced by cellular communication and the Internet. It is important to note that only 67.9% of households surveyed have a home stationary computer and/or a laptop. This figure does not seem to be enough, because the access to the Internet offers unlimited opportunities for education and development. It can be assumed that the remaining 32.1% of surveyed households that do not have a computer compensate the abscence by using the mobile Internet.
Considering the household structure in terms of demographic and social groups gives the following results: 11.9% of young families surveyed, 22.8% of large families, 16.2% of single-parent families, 70, 1% of families consisting only of pensioners, 82.8% of families consisting only of persons with disabilities do not have a home PC and/or a laptop. Thus, supporting the most vulnerable groups of the population such as retirees, disabled people, and large or incomplete families is an important task of the state and society.
Table 3
Provision of households with telecommunications and television by
All households Young families Large families Single-parent families Consisti ng only of pension ers Consisting of the disabled only
1 2 4 5 6 7
All households 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0
That have
color TV 99,0 97,7 98,5 99,3 99,1 98,3
satellite antenna 27,6 23,4 42,8 23,8 22,2 16,3
cable TV 47,3 52,2 36,7 50,5 40,6 35,6
landline phone 42,2 24,3 26,0 35,5 51,0 53,9
cell phone 97,6 99,8 99,4 99,6 93,0 86,9
PC and/or a laptop 67,9 88,1 77,2 83,8 29,9 17,2
That do not have
color tv 1,0 2,3 1,5 0,7 0,9 1,7
satellite antenna 72,4 76,6 57,2 76,2 77,8 83,7
cable TV 52,7 47,8 63,3 49,5 59,4 64,4
landline phone 57,8 75,7 74,0 64,5 49,0 46,1
cell phone 2,4 0,2 0,6 0,4 7,0 13,1
PC and/or a laptop 32,1 11,9 22,8 16,2 70,1 82,8
Source: Comprehensive observation of the living conditions of the population // Federal State Statistics Service. [Electronic resource] uRL: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/KOUZ16/index.html
Conclusion
In this paper, we analyzed the trends in the distribution of monetary income among various groups of the population of Russia, which characterize the standard of living. Also, on the basis of the Comprehensive Survey of the Standard of Living of the Population, the distribution of benefits and goods was considered including the financial situation of households and the provision of households with communications and television, which characterizes the quality of life of the population of modern Russia in the context of scientific and technological progress. Due to the fact that in any really existing economic system, the distribution of monetary incomes and benefits cannot be completely even, the emphasis was placed on the study of socio-economic differentiation by population groups, which should not be excessive, but leading to increased inequality and poverty.
In view of the foregoing, the search for a new concept of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation is becoming increasingly important, which will ensure not only sustainable growth, but also the quality of economic growth, including a focus on a more even distribution of the benefits of economic growth among various population groups.
Socio-economic differentiation of the population of Russia in the conditions of scientific and technical progress
Khaustova K.V., Tskhadadze N.V., Ekaterinovskaya M.A.
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
The article considers the assessment and analysis of socio-economic differentiation and the level of well-being of the population of Russia. A constant analysis of statistics characterizing inequality and poverty allows government bodies to take the necessary measures of social support for the population, including preventive ones, and to monitor the implementation of national goals and strategic development goals of the Russian Federation. The author considered the main methods for quantifying inequality and poverty, which include indicators such as the distribution of cash income by percentage groups of the population, the coefficient of funds, the Gini index, the distribution of the population by the size of the ratio of cash income and the cost of living, and other indicators.
The author investigated the problems of poverty as a consequence of the uneven distribution of income and public goods among the population. The search for a new concept of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation, which will reduce the socio-economic stratification of society and ensure sustainable economic growth, is becoming increasingly important.
Keywords: population welfare, income differentiation, poverty, distribution of cash incomes, socio-economic inequality of the population.
References
1. Ekaterinovskaya M.A. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the macroeconomic system in the coordinates of strategic planning]. Economy and Entrepreneurship, 2017, № 3 p. 2 (in Russ.).
2. Ekaterinovskaya M.A. The issue of evaluating the effectiveness of interstate targeted programs]. Economy and Entrepreneur-ship, 2016, № 10, p. 3 (in Russ.).
3. Lyubimov I.L. Inequality and economic growth: challenges for the Russian economy]. Russian Entrepreneurship, 2016, Vol. 17, № 1, pp. 11-22 (in Russ.).
4. K. McConnell, S. Brue Economics: principles, problems, politics. Trans. from English Moscow: Respublika Publishing House, 1993, pp. 399-400
5. Novikova V. Is a fair distribution of income possible?]. The Economist, 2005, №4, pp. 63-67 (in Russ.).
6. The social situation and the standard of living of the population of Russia. 2017: Stat.sb., Rosstat, M., p. 332
7. Khaustova K.V. Analysis of the socio-economic differentiation and the level of well-being of the population of Russia]. Innovations and investments № 1, 2019, pp. 269-277 (in Russ.).
8. Khaustova, K.V. The inclusiveness of economic growth in modern Russia]. Global economy in the XXI century: the dialectic of confrontation and solidarity. Collection of scientific papers / Ed. dr. econ Sciences, Professor D. Sorokin, edited by Dr. of econ. Sciences, associate professor Alpidovskoy M.L., Krasnodar, 2017, p. 494 (in Russ.).
9. Tskhadadze N.V. Reproduction of Russia in the 21st Century: Dialectics of Regulated Development: A Collective Monograph. Vol.1]. Ed. M.L. Alpidovskaya, Moscow, 2017, p. 256 (in Russ.).
10. Tskhadadze N.V. Reproduction of Russia in the 21st Century: Dialectics of Regulated Development: A Collective Monograph. Vol.2]. Ed. M.L. Alpidovskaya, Moscow, 2017, p. 286 (in Russ.).
11. Comprehensive observation of the living conditions of the population, Federal State Statistics Service. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/KOUZ16/index.html
12. Population. Inequality and poverty, Federal State Statistics Service. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/con-
nect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/poverty/#
13. Population. Standard of living, Federal State Statistics Service. [Electronic resource] URL: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/con-nect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/poverty/#
X X
o 00 A c.
X
00 m
o
io
2 O IO
o
