CC BY
30
♦--------------------------------------------------------------
During the War officers got differentiation on regular officers and wartime officers [13]. Term of study in military schools changed several times during the WWI [14, p. 356]. For example, term of study in the Page Corps, infantry and Cossack schools proved to last for four months according to the order of military department issued on February 18th, 1915. Meeting the request of the authorities of mentioned above schools, term of study in the Page Corps, infantry and Cossack schools was extended up to 5 months in April 1915 [15. O. 725. On. 48. fl. 970. fl. 34 06.].
Due to the military department order dated June 17th, 1916 term of study was shortened back to 4 months. When the Russian Provisional Government took the office, General Department of Military Schools issued the order in August 31st, 1917 to extend term of study up to 8 months [15. O. 1468. On. 2. fl. 145. f. 504]. Term extension also happened in cavalry and Cossack schools [16]. Social origin of future commissioned officers stopped being matter of importance.
Thus, military schools abandoned to be noble due to social structure change in Russia, educational level-up, transforming into bourgeois society, noblemen stand-down and, finally the WWI. Social liberalization in military schools started in the Milutin reforms period of the 1860s - 1870s and finished in the WWI. The old feudal system of officers' recruitment for the army was outdated because of the progress, and, finally, vanished in the early 20th century.
1. БескровныйЛ.Г. Русская армия и флот в XVIII веке. М., 1958.
2. Лалаев М.С. Исторический очерк военно-учебных заведений, подведомственных Главному их управлению. От основания в России военных школ до исхода первого двад-
цатипятилетия благополучного царствования государя императора Александра Николаевича. 1700 - 1880 . СПб., 1880.
3. Столетие Военного министерства. 1802 - 1902. Т. X. Ч. 1. Главное управление военно-учебных заведений: исторический очерк / сост. П.В. Петров. СПб., 1902.
4. Полн. собр. законов. Т. XVII. Ст. 12741.
5. Бескровный Л.Г. Русская армия и флот в XIX веке. М., 1973.
6. Бескоровный Л.Г. Армия и флот России в начале XX в. М., 1986.
7. Всеобщий календарь. Педагогический отдел. СПб.: Изд. П.П. Сойкина, 1909.
8. Зайончковский П.А. Самодержавие и русская армия на рубеже XIX - XX столетий. 1881 - 1903. М., 1973.
9. Его же: Военные реформы 1860 - 1870 годов в России. М., 1952.
10. Месснер Е, Вакар С., Вербицкий Ф. Российские офицеры // Офицерский корпус Русской Армии: опыт самопознания. М., 2000.
11. Всеподданнейший отчет о действиях Военного министерства за 1903 г. Отчет Главного артиллерийского управления. СПб., 1904.
12. Всеподданнейший отчет о действиях Военного министерства за 1881 г. СПб., 1882.
13. Положение об ускоренной подготовке офицеров в военное время в военно-учебных заведениях с четырехмесячным ускоренным курсом (Пр. по В. в. № 689 от 1914 г.); Положение об ускоренной подготовке офицеров в военное время в военно-учебных заведениях с 8-месячным ускоренным курсом (Пр. по В. в. № 756 от 1914 г.).
14. Михайлов А.А. Руководство военным образованием в России во второй половине XIX - начале XX веков. Псков, 1999.
15. Российский государственный военно-исторический архив (РГВИА).
16. Приказ по военному ведомству № 689 от 20 октября
1914 г.; Приказ по военному ведомству № 81 от 18 февраля
1915 г.
удк 94(47) Ya.V. Shabanov
UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE 1990s: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
The article deals with some unemployment problems in the 1990s. Unemployment features of a period of transition are shown as well as its manifestations in particular regions. Economic and social consequences are described; forms and methods of coping with this problem are studied.
Key words: employment, unemployment, legislative issues, employment service, standard of living.
Я.В. Шабанов
НЕКОТОРЫЕ ПРОБЛЕМЫ ТРУДОВОЙ ЗАНЯТОСТИ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ И ПУТИ ИХ РЕШЕНИЯ в 90-е годы XX века
В статье рассматриваются некоторые проблемы безработицы 90-х гг. XX в. Показаны ее особенности в условиях переходного периода, проявление в отдельных регионах. Раскрываются экономические, социальные последствия, изучаются формы и методы борьбы с этим явлением.
Ключевые слова: занятость населения, безработица, законодательные акты, служба занятости, качество жизни.
Unemployment was one of the factors which had a significant influence on the social picture of the country. Being a part of the market economy unemployment was not something unexpected. The problem was in its extent and the government readiness to contain it. It is known, that radical reforms made a great deal of people, including economically active population, feel risky. Even at the first stage unemployment became too vast, and it forced authorities to seek ways out. Employment Act of the Russian Federation 1991, per se, legalized unemployment. Legis-
lative act number 3 established order and conditions which allows to recognize people as unemployed. In particular, this act of law says, “Able-bodied citizens are considered as unemployed, if they do not have a job and earnings, but they are registered in employment placement agencies to find a right job, look for job opportunities and are ready to proceed to work. Severance pays and preserved average payments to employees, discharged from organizations (or from the military service) on grounds of dissolution or staff reduction irrespective of business entity and patterns
♦
♦
of ownership of this organization, are not considered as earnings” [1].
The state and society grappled with the problem, seemed to be forgotten about completely. The last labor exchange in Russia stopped working in 1930. There was no need for a free labor market in the society with the distributive economy based on directives principles. Everything changed in contemporary Russia. According to the economists' forecast made in the 1990s, 2.7 million people were able to turn to labor exchanges [2].
A rapid growth of number of unemployed people, on one side, and lack of particular experience (there were no market mechanisms to cope with unemployment), on the other side, were a matter of some difficulty. Moreover, unemployment in Russia turned out to be a long-range phenomenon. A lot of manufacturing enterprises disappeared and many occupations became unnecessary. Mass poverty and poor social security of the unemployed aggravated the situation. It meant that the government, though not always ready, had to do its best to solve the problem.
It should be noted that unemployment, born by difficulties of a period of transition, ab origin got the character of that period. First of all, unemployment in Russia due to insufficient regulation kept going worse. Production capacity plummeted in all sectors of economy that adversely affected the situation.
Expectations for the fast growing in the 1990s nonproductive sector of economy to employ a great number of able-bodied citizens failed. Soon its potential evaporated. At the same time unemployment was accelerating and threatening the economy. To prove that fact we should mention that GDP shrank by 2.8% in 1992 while in 1995 it dropped by 4.5%.
The issue of unemployment remained topical for the last decade of the 20th century. In terms of that matter acts of law were adopted, different task programs were worked out, and organizational events were held. In February 1993 the priority directions to assist employment population were defined by the Government of the Russian Federation regulations. Those priority lines included: contractual system between the authorities and employers, employment creation, and implementation of public works to release violent job destruction in various industrial businesses [3].
In June 1993 the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation instituted three-level placement service: committees in republics, centers in regions and territories, and local municipal authorities. According to the regulations, employment bodies' task was to control and analyze the level of unemployment, forecast its dynamics, and supply people with guidelines. At the same time the employment fund emerged. Its sources of capital accumulation were employers' insurance contributions, employees' income tax, local authorities' payments, and fund capital gains as well [4].
Thus the mechanism for social solidarity joined in the work to help curb growth of unemployment. Every party was responsible for managing the lifecycle of its problems. The government was responsible for elaborating the plan and policy of employment population and coordination; employers - for job creation and job maintenance, as well as for the market labor strengthening; trade unions - for defending the interests of employees. Moreover, public authorities were bound to facilitate SME development, support the quota system of jobs, and provide occupational training and retraining of the unemployed.
Unfortunately, all those efforts had little effect, because the events of 1993 and following changes uppermost demanded policymaking from the government. And the economic issues were quite often obnubilated. It did not solve the unemployment problems, its growth rates increased indeed. There were 578,000 unemployed people in Russia in 1992; 836,000 - in 1993; and 2,327,000 - by 1995. The percentage statement figures over all economically active population were 0.8%, 1.5% and 3.3% respectively [5]. It is clear that unemployment rate more than tripled over a short period of time. We should mention that only officially registered unemployed people were counted. There was so called “shadow” or hidden unemployment in the labor market at that time. Statistical agencies were not able to count up those who did not work because of forced leaves or those who worked half-time.
The labor market situation of the 1990s dramatically influenced national financial performance. Central and local authorities had to lay out more and more cash to lessen the unemployment rate and support the unemployed. For example, 371,000 people got unemployment benefit in 1992; 550,000 people - in 1993; 1,395,000 - in 1994; and 2,026,000 - in 1995. The unemployment rate jumped six times. The National Employment Fund spent
1,864,724,000,000 roubles on unemployment benefits in 1995 [6]. It was very difficult for the government to carry out its obligations.
Employment promotion program, meant for a year, was adopted by the Russian government in May 1995. Later similar programs were adopted for 1996 - 1997 and 1998
- 2000 [7]. Each paper showed real things in the labor market and represented itself as an efficient instrument to solve unemployment problems.
And it proved to be so. Unemployment growth rate slowed down in the middle 1990s. In particular, unemployment growth rate fell from 3.2% to 2.7% in 1997. But we could not figure on stability of the positive dynamics because of economic crisis in real sector. The situation in regions kept on being difficult. In 1997 the unemployment rate in the Penza region was 12%, in the Saratov region -15.9%, and in the Ulyanovsk region - 9.8% [8].
Placement services registered 2,000,000 able-bodied citizens across the country in 1997. For example, there were 9 unemployed applying for a vacancy in the Astrakhan region. But in rural areas the situation was even worse, e.g. there were 25 unemployed applying for a vacancy in Kamyzyaksky district, 75 - in Krasnoyarsky district, 136 - in Chernoyarsky dictrict, 192 - in Kharabalinsky district, 205
- in Limansky district, and 225 - in Volodarsky district [9].
Similar situation with some slight differences could be observed in all regions of the Russian Federation. Therefore the following measures were assigned: job placement assistance, training and retraining, improvement of interregional disposition of funds, increase in public and temporary works, financial support to employers engaged in jobs creation, SME and private enterprise development, etc.
The Ministry of Labor and Social Development of the Russian Federation worked out job counseling and emotional involvement of population regulations in October 1996. Not long after special agencies were founded to help people find jobs. Local employment bureaus, job counseling centers, educational institutions, social psychology services, and public health authorities were charged with these duties in regions. All public institutions connected with job counseling were engaged.
Unemployment in Russia was locally marked. For example, in the Volga Region, unemployment severely influenced agricultural sector. The rate of unemployment in the North Caucasus was strongly affected by the 1990s political situation, as well as by manufacturing disorganization, institutional restructuring, backwardness of subsidiary sectors and infrastructure, use of unskilled labor and cheap labor of guest workers (to save on wages).
Local authorities followed central authorities in adopting employment promotion programs. Local programs goals and objectives as well as funding sources were similar to federal programs. Program development process took into account soviet epoch practices. For example, programs, worked out by the Saratov region authorities in the late 1980s and in the middle 1990s, had a lot in common. These programs had virtually the same grounds (a high share of manual labor, low level of social security, poor job counseling) and objectives (occupational training, improvement of economic incentives, sole proprietorship promotion, psychological support servicing) as well as forces and resources (trade unions, work collectives, budgetary mechanisms) used at that time [10].
We cannot but mention the differences. Not only large but small and medium sized businesses along with social partnership as an instrument, and business community played an important role in unemployment problem solving in the 1990s unlike the 1980s. The source of financing also changed. Great importance was attached to regional and local budgets. New ways of population participation such as barter center, information analysis system “Pilot” and marketing research center appeared.
The 1990s intricate unemployment situation could become a reason for social conflicts. So it demanded efficient solutions and great efforts. “Comprehensive program aimed at job creation and job maintenance for 1996 -2000” adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation became a good set of guidelines [11]. That program was made taking into account regions' experience and scientific forecasts. It thought employment to be the matter of paramount importance. Also it recommended advancing proved ways of population participation, especially youth involvement. Youth labor exchanges and data centers were founded in regions. Job fairs for secondary school leavers became customary. Data bases, informing about job vacancies in a particular region and beyond, were formed. The Astrakhan region practices were of interest. Local authorities attached importance to rural area. They intended to place in a job about 10,000 people under the specialpurpose program “Youth employment 1999”. Two thirds of those people were village youth. To achieve that goal, the youth labor exchange with assistance of local authorities made employment contracts with regional authorities, municipal government and employers. Advisory services counseling urban as well as rural areas started working. Moreover, educational and training activities were organized on the basis of entrepreneurial center “Factorial”. All these measures turned to be fruitful: the situation with youth employment slightly improved and jobs in public utility, construction, repair and secondary raw materials processing sectors were created [12].
There are a lot of good examples of unemployment problem solving in regions. Unfortunately all those achievements engendered by the real employment situation and local authorities initiative were local, insufficient and tem-
porary So they could not completely change the negative situation with unemployment. Thus in the late 1990s the rate of unemployment kept on being high (table 1).
T a b l e 1
Unemployment rate in the Russian Federation in 2000, thousand people*
including
unemployed people
RF 71 77G 7 515 Ю,б
Central 1S б49 1 449 7,8
Northwestern 7 5G6 725 9, 7
Southern 9 5S2 1 447 1б,1
Privolzhsky 1б 7S2 1 514 9,6
Uralsky 6 361 625 9, S
Siberian Ю 17S 1 285 12,6
Far Eastern 3 S11 470 12,3
* Based on: Российский статистический ежегодник: стат. сб. / Госкомстат России. М., 2001. С. 134 - 140.
We can see that in the early 2000s the rate of unemployment in all constituent territories went on being high. Given indicators exceeded the limit in some constituent territories (Southern, Siberian and Far Eastern). As we know, the permissible level of unemployment in the market economy varies between 5 - 6%. But it was difficult to attain. Because of unemployment, our country received less output and lost a great deal of gross revenue. On the other side, the situation with employment made the government look for new efficient instruments to regulate the labor market.
Unemployment affected badly not only the country economy but other spheres of social life. It held back development of human potential, limited creative power, and affected a single individual or family standard of living. It being known that, the longer a person looked for a job, all the more so to lose their skills as well as opportunity to work. Unemployment also had a bad influence on family budget. A lot of Russian families were not able to satisfy their daily wants. Scientific researches proved that expenditure on cultural and health promotion programs shrank or vanished at all at that period.
1. Текст дается в редакции Федерального закона от 30 апреля 1999 г № 85-ФЗ.
2. См.: Российская газета. 1992. 10 янв.
3. Там же. 1993. 18 февр.
4. Там же. 1993. 23 июня.
5. Рассчитано на сновании: Российский статистический ежегодник: стат. сб. М., С. 133.
6. См.: Социальное положение и уровень жизни населения России: стат. сб. М., 2000. С. 215.
7. См.: Российская газета. 1995. 14 июня; 1996. 1 июля; 1998. 1 сент.
8. См.: Пензенская область. Основные показатели развития с 1991 по 2003 гг.: стат. сб. Пенза, 2004. С. 88 - 93.
9. Текущий архив администрации Астраханской области. Аналитическая справка о занятости экономически активного населения за 1995 - 1997 гг. С.16.
10. Государственный архив новейшей истории Саратовской области (ГАНИСО). Ф. 594. Оп. 45. Д. 21. Л. 6 - 9; Постановление Саратовской областной Думы «О программе содействия занятости населения на 1997 год» // Информационный бюллетень. 1998. № 15. С. 44 - 45, 48 - 132.
11. См.: Российская газета. 1996. 5 июня.
12. См.: Сборник законов и нормативных правовых актов Астраханской области. 1999. № 3. С.110 - 117.
