CC BY
1
Turdimambetov I.R., DSc.
professor
economic and social geography department Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
Uzbekistan, Nukus Oteuliev M.O., PhD. acting as associate professor economic and social geography department Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
Uzbekistan, Nukus Urazbaeva S. researcher
economic and social geography department Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
Uzbekistan, Nukus
TERRITORIAL CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE POPULATION IN
THE REGION
Abstract. Measuring the quality of life is currently at the forefront of various fields of science. Despite the great interest in quality of life and many attempts to measure it, there is no methodologically sound and generally accepted way of measuring life. Quality of life remains a controversial concept that can be measured in different ways: analysis of one or more factors of quality of life (material well-being and GDP per capita), using objective and subjective measures, created collective indicators.
Keywords: quality of life, well-being, indicator, population, districts.
The problem of quality of life includes the issue of indicators (indicators), with the help of which researchers try to measure this complex social phenomenon [1,4,5]. Some researchers believe that the quality of life is a multi-component phenomenon, which cannot be homogenized and measured using a single indicator. At the same time, various assumptions have been put forward to measure the quality of life: from survey methods, research that reveals the assessment by individuals and groups of their position in society, their level of satisfaction with their position, to complex schemes and models based on a number of specific factors that describe the quality of life methods [2,3].
An important aspect of the quality of life of the population is determined by the standard of living of the population, that is, economic conditions. The following 15 indicators reflecting the economic conditions of the quality of life of the residents of the administrative-territorial units of the Republic of Karakalpakstan were used in the study (Table 1).
The criteria in this list reflect the average amount of income of the residents of the Republic of Karakalpakstan from various sources, their purchasing power, the price of the most necessary food products, and some parameters of poverty. In the assessment of the quality of life of the residents of the regions according to the relevant indicators, the data of the General Directorate of Statistics of the Republic of Karakalpakstan, the General Directorate of the Central Bank of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the General Directorate of Family and Community Support of the Republic of Karakalpakstan and the Ministry of Housing and Communal Services of the Republic of Karakalpakstan were used.
The data was obtained as of the end of 2020. The prices of food products were studied as a result of selective observations in farmers' markets in the administrative centers of the city of Nukus and 16 rural districts of the republic, and their average values were calculated in the region. Then, the average monthly salary calculated by the statistical authorities in the region was divided into the relevant prices. These indicators were taken into account during the direct evaluation process.
The indicators of the regions according to each evaluation criterion were divided by the average indicator of the Republic of Karakalpakstan and relative coefficients were determined. It should be noted that most of the criteria in the economic bloc (12 out of 15) have a positive character, that is, the higher their quantitative value, the more positive the material conditions of the population's living. However, such indicators as the share of working-age population, debt for communal services per capita, and the share of the population included in the «Temir daftar», on the contrary, have a negative character, that is, their high values indicate a low standard of living of the population.
Table 1. Classification of the districts of the Republic of Karakalpakstan according to the economic indicators of the quality of
life of the population
№ Administrative- Average monthly salary Average pension amount Number of small business entities (per 1,000 population) Share of working-age population of those who went abroad to work Retail turnover per capita
territorial units A Coefficient A Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Reverse coefficient A Coefficient
thousand of thousand of In unity of % of thousand of
sums relativity sums relativity relativity relativity sums relativity
1 Nukus city 3034,5 1,27 926,8 1,15 16,6 1,21 10,4 0,95 1,06 6628,0 1,92
2 Amudarya 1794,7 0,75 702 0,87 10,3 0,75 12,1 1,10 0,91 2208,1 0,64
3 Beruni 1764,9 0,74 770,6 0,96 12,0 0,88 13,5 1,23 0,81 2862,2 0,83
4 Bozatau 1818,3 0,76 752,4 0,93 18,4 1,34 6,4 0,58 1,72 1811,6 0,52
5 Kegeyli 1996,8 0,84 756 0,94 12,0 0,88 10,4 0,95 1,06 2182,8 0,63
6 Muynak 1835,2 0,77 850,3 1,05 18,3 1,34 6,1 0,55 1,80 1524,0 0,44
7 Nukus 2319,9 0,97 870,1 1,08 24,4 1,78 9,0 0,82 1,22 2157,7 0,62
8 Takhiatas 2436,8 1,02 873,1 1,08 8,9 0,65 11,6 1,05 0,95 2033,9 0,59
9 Takhtakupir 1790,5 0,75 808 1,00 15,0 1,09 5,8 0,53 1,90 3556,6 1,03
10 Tortkul 1919,5 0,81 728,7 0,90 16,1 1,18 11,3 1,03 0,97 2778,5 0,80
11 Khodjeli 2075,9 0,87 750,5 0,93 9,1 0,66 8,8 0,80 1,25 5401,5 1,56
12 Chimbay 2007,8 0,84 768,3 0,95 10,7 0,78 12,9 1,17 0,85 2221,1 0,64
13 Shomanay 1958 0,82 776,9 0,96 14,3 1,04 7,4 0,67 1,49 2457,8 0,71
14 Ellikkala 2009,8 0,84 798,7 0,99 12,7 0,93 14,9 1,35 0,74 2234 0,65
15 Kanlikul 1825,2 0,77 797,9 0,99 18,7 1,36 8,2 0,75 1,34 2931,1 0,85
16 Karauzak 1841,9 0,77 801,1 0,99 18,2 1,33 7,3 0,66 1,51 3532,2 1,02
17 Kungrad 2889,6 1,21 952,9 1,18 10,7 0,78 11,4 1,04 0,96 3623,6 1,05
18 Karakalpakstan Republic 2383,4 1,00 806,4 1,00 13,7 1,00 11,0 1,00 1,00 3455,90 1,00
№ Administrative-territorial units Volume of paid services per capita Accounts receivable for utilities per capita Population included in the "Temir daftar" Amount of deposits in banks per capita Employment rate (relative to working-age population)
A thousa nd sums Coeffici ent of relativity A thousa nd sums Coeffici ent of relativit y Reverse coefficie nt Per mill e Coefficient of relativity Reverse coeffici ent Sum Coeffic ient of relativi ty % Coefficie nt of relativity
1 Nukus city 8621, 5 2,53 192,87 1,16 0,86 0,2 4 2,18 0,46 1272139,3 3,37 75 1,15
2 Amudarya 1728, 9 0,51 106,65 0,64 1,56 0,0 5 0,45 2,20 194714,6 0,52 63 0,97
3 Beruni 1732, 1 0,51 141,31 0,85 1,18 0,0 6 0,55 1,83 321815,5 0,85 64 0,98
4 Bozatau 1224, 8 0,36 136,44 0,82 1,22 0,1 9 1,73 0,58 0 0,00 60 0,92
5 Kegeyli 1745, 4 0,51 160,6 0,96 1,04 0,0 8 0,73 1,38 127295,4 0,34 75 1,15
6 Muynak 2603, 2 0,76 156,39 0,94 1,07 0,2 1 1,91 0,52 170884,3 0,45 64 0,98
7 Nukus 2687, 1 0,79 200,85 1,20 0,83 0,0 7 0,64 1,57 113505,6 0,30 68 1,05
8 Takhiatas 2157 0,63 159,29 0,95 1,05 0,1 7 1,55 0,65 195700,4 0,52 70 1,08
9 Takhtakupir 2558, 2 0,75 87,63 0,53 1,90 0,1 9 1,73 0,58 132437,8 0,35 56 0,86
10 Tortkul 2347, 7 0,69 161,94 0,97 1,03 0,0 5 0,45 2,20 230556 0,61 59 0,91
11 Khodjeli 2338, 3 0,69 295,65 1,77 0,56 0,0 9 0,82 1,22 200581,4 0,53 59 0,91
12 Chimbay 1735, 8 0,51 122,43 0,73 1,36 0,0 6 0,55 1,83 99995,7 0,26 65 1,00
13 Shomanay 1667, 8 0,49 126,21 0,76 1,32 0,0 6 0,55 1,83 98788,9 0,26 57 0,88
14 Ellikkala 1777, 3 0,52 150,91 0,90 1,11 0,1 4 1,27 0,79 130568,5 0,35 66 1,02
15 Kanlikul 1710, 7 0,50 121,37 0,73 1,37 0,0 9 0,82 1,22 111571,2 0,30 62 0,95
16 Karauzak 2301, 4 0,67 109,6 0,66 1,52 0,0 7 0,64 1,57 106502,2 0,28 61 0,94
17 Kungrad 6782, 3 1,99 283,39 1,70 0,59 0,0 5 0,45 2,20 349148 0,92 67 1,03
18 Karakalpaksta n Republic 3412, 0 1,00 166,83 1,00 1,00 0,1 1 1,00 1,00 377500 1,00 65 1,00
t] ie continuation of f the table
Administrative-territorial units The amount of products that can be purchased for 1 person with an average monthly salary (kg) Sum of coeffici ents Rankin g position The level
Wheat flour (local, first class) Cottonseed oil Beef Sugar Potatoes
Kg Coeffic ient of relativit y Liter Coeffic ient of relativit y Kg Coefficie nt of relativity Kg Coeffic ient of relativit y Kg Coeffic ient of relativit y
Nukus city 905,8 1,44 168,6 1,27 51,4 1,28 319,4 1,31 674,3 1,41 21,68 1 High
Districts:
Amudarya 366,3 0,58 105,6 0,79 31,2 0,77 149,6 0,61 358,9 0,75 13,19 10 Low
Beruni 578,7 0,92 107 0,80 28,2 0,70 207,6 0,85 320,9 0,67 13,52 8 Low
Bozatau 505,1 o,ao 101 0,7б 31,9 0,79 ^б,5 0,7б 427,a 0,a9 12,3a 15 Low
Kegeyli 4a7 0,77 99,a 0,75 31,9 0,79 210,2 0,86 399,4 0,a4 12,77 14 Low
Muynak б01,7 0,95 99,2 0,75 33,4 0^3 lбб,a 0,68 319,2 0,б7 13,07 13 Low
Nukus б72,4 1,07 132,б 1,00 37,1 0,92 237,9 0,97 515,5 1,oa 15,25 3 Averag e
Takhiatas 459,a 0,73 141,3 1,0б 45,1 1,12 249,9 1,02 4a7,4 1,02 13,17 11 Low
Takhtakupir б0б,9 0,9б 102,3 0,77 34,a 0^ 193,б 0,79 35a,1 0,75 14,35 5 Averag e
0 Tortkul 43б,3 0,б9 109,7 0,a2 30,7 0,7б 207,5 0,a5 3б5,б 0,7б 13,99 б Low
1 Khodjeli 4б1,3 0,73 120,3 0,90 33,2 0,a2 21a,5 0,a9 437 0,91 13,4б 9 Low
2 Chimbay 4a3,a 0,77 105,7 0,79 32,4 o,ao 211,3 0,86 422,7 o,aa 13,1б 12 Low
3 Shomanay 435,1 0,б9 105,a o,ao 31,3 o,7a 200,a 0^2 35б 0,74 13,б4 7 Low
4 Ellikkala 502,5 o,ao 111,7 0,a4 33,5 0,a3 211,б 0,a7 44б,б 0,93 12,19 1б Low
5 Kanlikul 507 o,ao 9a,7 0,74 29,2 0,72 1a7,2 0,77 3б5 0,7б 13,4б 9 Low
б Karauzak б03,9 0,9б 100,9 0,7б 31,a 0,79 204,7 0,a4 350,a 0,73 14,б9 4 Averag e
7 Kungrad 7б0,4 1,21 1б5,1 1,24 52,5 1,30 275,2 1,13 550,4 1,15 17,95 2 High
S Karakalpakstan Republic 630,5 1,00 133 1,00 40,3 1,00 244,5 1,00 47S,1 1,00 15,00
In order to ensure that all indicators in the block are analysed in the same direction during the statistical calculation process, and as a result, in order to provide an integrated assessment, the inverse value of the coefficients of relativity determined in the cross-section of regions for these 3 indicators was calculated, and those numbers were used in the final calculations.
After determining the relativity coefficients in the cross-section of regions for all indicators and the reverse coefficients in necessary cases, the sum of 15 coefficients was found in the cross-section of each district and city of Nukus. Based on this digital indicator, the ranking of territorial units was released.
Since the national average value for all criteria is equal to 1.00, the sum of the relative coefficients determined by 15 evaluation criteria of administrative territorial units was compared with 15. Areas with an integral indicator equal to the range of 14-16 should be assessed as having an average level of economic conditions for the quality of life of the population, areas with less than 14 - at a low level, and areas with a value higher than 16 - at a high level. The city of Nukus (21.68) and Kungrad district (17.95) are at a high level, the districts of Nukus (15.25), Karauzak (14.69) and Takhtakupir (14.35) are at a medium level, and Tortkul (13.99), Shomanay (13.64), Beruni (13.52), Khodjeli (13.46), Kanlikul (13.46), Amudarya (13.19), Takhiatas (13.17), Chimbay (13.16), Muynak (13.07), Kegeyli (12.77), Bozatau (12.38) and Ellikkala (12.19) districts are at a low level (Table 1). It can be seen that compared to the average level of the Republic of Karakalpakstan, the economic (material) living conditions of the population are rated high only in 2 regions and medium in 3 regions, and low in most administrative-territorial units (12 out of 17). This situation indicates that regional differences in the standard of living of the population in the region are quite significant.
References:
1. Susniene, D., & Jurkauskas, A. The Concepts of Quality of Life and Happiness - Correlation and Differences. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics (3), 2009, - P. 58-66.
2. Turdimambetov I.R, Madreymov A., Pauditsova E., Oteuliev M.O., Bekanov K.K. Influence of harmful environmental factors on the rate of incidence of children in Karakalpakstan. Central Asian journal of the geographical researches. No 3-4, 2021, - P. 55-63.
3. Turdimambetov I.R., Uzaqbaev Q.K., Oteuliev M.O. Territorial formation of the education system in improving the quality of life of the population of the Republic of Karakalpakstan // Экономика и социум. 2020. №12 (79). ISSN 2225-1545. Р. 276-279. (11.00.00; Мустакил давлатлар хдмдустлиги мамлакатлари нашрлари, №11.).
4. Veenhoven, R. Apparent Quality of Life in Nations. How Long and Happy People Live. Social Indicators Research (71), 2005, - P. 61-68.
5. Violeta Pukeliene, Viktorija Starkauskiene. Quality of Life: Factors Determining its Measurement Complexity. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 22(2), 2011, - P. 147-156.
