This chapter discusses the general legal framework regulating Russia’s welfare system and access for national citizens, foreigners residing in the country, and national citizens residing abroad to social benefts in fve policy areas: unemployment, health care, family benefts, pensions, and guaranteed minimum resources.
This book presents the main findings of a study on school learning environments and student outcomes, which the World Bank conducted in 2019 in three regions of the Russian Federation. Using data collected through the OECD School User Survey and the pilot “Trends in Mathematics and Science Study” (TIMSS), the book analyzes how a school’s infrastructure and learning environment may affect the progress and success of students in math and science. It also delves into teaching practices, analyzing their impact on learning and highlighting the important nexus between learning environments and teaching methods. The book concludes by recommending areas in which focused attention by educational authorities could improve educational policy and help maintain high-quality learning environments. The book will be useful for educators, school principals, architects, and policy makers who are involved in school infrastructure projects and are interested in increasing their knowledge of school design planning.
Dual or multiple earnership has been considered an important factor to prevent in-work poverty. The aim of this paper is to quantify the impact of second earnership on the risk of in-work poverty and the role of the tax-benefit system in moderating this risk. Our analysis refers to 2014 and employs EUROMOD, the tax-benefit microsimulation model for the European Union and the United Kingdom. In order to assess the role of second earners in preventing in-work poverty we simulate a counterfactual scenario where second earners become unemployed. Our results show that the effect of net replacement rates (i.e. the ratio of household income before and after the transition of second earners to unemployment) on the probability of in-work poverty is negative and statistically significant, but in relative terms it appears to be small compared to the effects of individual labour market characteristics, such as low pay and part-time employment.
Not all people with disabilities are provided with assistive technologies and devices (ATD) they need. The Russian researchers appeal to the development of assistive technologies, however, focus only on one specific social objective of ATD provision or on engineering, economic and production aspects of the problem. This study identifies the key determinants of the development of the assistive technologies market in Russia and trends over the next 10–15 years. We conducted a qualitative study using a grounded theory based on open and axial coding procedure. We collected data using semi-structured interviews with 12 experts recruited through snowball sampling with multiple entry points. The results show that the focus on the development of individual rehabilitation programs, individual fitting of devices, the increasing demand for measures of medical and social support for people with disabilities create conditions for the growth of demand for ATD. Changes in the paying capacity of the population, the rules of budget financing, as well as the population's attitude towards the inclusion of people with disabilities in everyday activities, the labor market, education will also cause changes in demand for ATD.
The number of births in January-April 2020 is 5.6% lower than in the same period of 2019, the absolute mortality rate is 3% lower. The natural decline in Russia’s population accounts to 160,300 people. During the period of quarantine the birth and mortality data were under-reported; therefore the figures will be adjusted in the future. In April 2020, 2,712 deaths (1.8%) were registered with COVID-19 as the main or associated cause of death.
The growth of Russia’s population due to migration in January-April 2020 was the lowest for the last decade. Migration compensated 24.6% of the natural decline of the population. Quarantine restrictions had affected not only migration itself but also the place of residence change registration process. The number of in-country migrations recorded by Rosstat decreased by 20% as compared to January-April 2019.
By the beginning of the summer of 2020, there were 4.08 million migrant workers in Russia – 8% fewer than a year ago. The most significant reduction is from Ukraine (by a third) and Moldova (by a quarter). Declining share of migrants working legally will be the main problem after the quarantine stage of the labor market.
A sharp decline in tax revenues has occurred in the vast majority of the regions of the Russian Federation. The April 2020 consolidated regional budgets loss accounts for almost 3% of 2019 annual revenues. The registered unemployment rate increased by a factor of 1.5 to 2, being the highest in large and most developed regions with more pronounced service sector employment. Retail trade turnover fell by more than a quarter. Paid services consumption fell even deeper (by 38%) not only due to quarantine restrictions but also to growing housing and utility services arrears. There was an industrial decline in 2/3 of the regions in April, while in January-April housing construction has been reduced in 2/3 of regions.
A «child» mortgage program is targeted on families who gave birth to a second or subsequent child after January 1, 2018. As for April 2020 demand for the program accounts for 4% of the target group. It is higher in the North-Western, Central and Volga Federal Districts. The demand is weaker in the most regions of the North Caucasus Federal District, where the people are less likely to take any mortgages.
The article was written on the basis of the RANEPA state assignment research programme.
This article presents the results of a longitudinal survey of the middle class in Russia based
on data from the Higher School of Economics Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey
(RLMS-HSE), demonstrating the transformation of the middle class from 2000 to 2017.
We use a three-criteria methodological scheme for identifying the middle class (welfare,
occupational status and self-identification). According to this methodology, the intersection
of all three criteria defines the core of the middle class, the intersection of any of the two
criteria – the semi-core, and the possession of a single criterion defines the periphery.
The generalized middle class is defined as the sum of the core and the semi-core.
Supplemented by the periphery, the generalized middle class outlines the boundaries
of the aggregate middle class. We analyze its dynamics and mobility and the modification
of the core, the semi-core and the periphery through different stages of Russia’s economic
development. Throughout the 2000s, there was a steady increase in the proportion of
the middle class in Russia. However, according to monitoring data, within 2000–2017,
the high mobility of the middle-class composition was recorded, with a significant increase
in the size of the generalized middle class. Its composition changed not only due to the
inflow of new households, but also due to the dropout. Only about half of the generalized
middle class remained stable from year to year. This fact cannot but cause concern
because, despite the plurality of opinions regarding the role of the middle class in societal
development, its stability is generally viewed as key to stable state development.
The article examines the economic activity of women after childbirth in Russia and the incentives and barriers that exist for them in returning to employment. The birth of a child in Russia involves a number of risks to the employment of the mother. First of all, it’s a risk to stay without work and there is a chance that less than favourable working conditions will be found after returning from maternity leave and child care compared to workers without children. The longer the break in employment, the higher the likelihood of employment problems. One can argue that this is solely due to the loss of skills during the maternity leave, but this obviously contributes. These facts are particularly important because families with children in Russia are consistently among the groups at the highest risk of falling into poverty. Why do some return to work (sometimes even before the end of the maternity leave), while others remain outside of the labour market? What keeps women off the labour market, and what could help them to find employment or to return to the same place? To answer these questions, we carried out qualitative analysis based on data from group interviews and a comparison of the views of unemployed and employed women with children under the age of three. We also interviewed employees high, medium and low-skilled workers – that reflect the socio-economic heterogeneity of the population we studied. The research is also based on data from focus groups conducted in four types of settlements in Russia in 2013: the capital city, a large city, a small city, and a village.
The topic of the middle class is back among the most relevant in recent years against the background of searching for growth drivers for the economy and the key to social stability of society. The expectations placed on the middle class often seem excessive and contradictory, but there are perspectives in which this stratum of society differs significantly from other Russians. This article examines the role of the middle class as a provider of changes and new standards of consumption through investment practices in the development of human capital. The focus is on the consumption of paid services in education and health, both in dynamics over a period of almost 20 years, and based on data from a special cross-sectional study of the middle class conducted in 2018. An assessment of the dynamics of consumption of paid services shows that the Russian middle class is actively increasing investment in human capital in favorable economic conditions and is trying to maintain the existing level of consumption in times of crisis, while remaining the leader in the consumption of these services among the population. A factor model of investment behavior of the middle class built on the data of a special cross-sectional survey highlights the differentiation of behavior of various socio-economic groups in its composition. The study takes into account the heterogeneity of the middle class and analyzes the behavior of its core and other representatives.
The regions over January-November 2019 demonstrated stunted social and economic development. Except renewal in the residential construction sector following the recession the fastest rate of development was posted in the largest Moscow agglomeration. Amid the weak wage growth seen in the vast majority of the regions the low level of unemployment retains. The budgetary situation is favorable, however the revenues growth of the budgets of many regions in large measure is secured by the growth of transfers. The need to implement President’s Executive Orders was reflected in the outstripping growth of budgetary expenditure on national economy and provision of public amenities.
Weak growth in 2019 prevented most regional indicators from returning to pre-crisis levels. Income started to grow in 59 regions, but the crisis recession was not overcome. Growth in regional budget revenues slowed down despite significant growth in transfers. Expenditures grew one and a half times faster than revenues, which resulted in budget deficits in 36 subjects of the Russian Federation. Regional differentiation of per capita social expenditures was somewhat mitigated; social expenditures were a priority for the vast majority of regions.
For the second year in a row Russian population decline. It has happened due to both a significant reduction in the number of births and an insufficient reduction in mortality. The natural decline of Russia’s population in 2019 was 316,200 people, with a total decline of the population by 35,600 people. The mortality rate fell by 1.6 per cent (to 12.3 per 1,000 population) compared to the previous year. The total fertility rate in 2019 was 1.51 children per woman of reproductive age – which was 4.4% lower than in 2018 (1,58).
The migratory growth of the Russian population in 2019 increased to 285.6 thousand people. However, it did not compensate the increased natural loss of population. The increase in migration growth has affected the migration balance of many regions of the country, including Siberia and the Far East. However, main centers of attraction remained the same.
In 2019 there were noticeably more foreigners temporarily staying in Russia – especially tourists, employees and those who arrived for private purposes. The number of labor migrants from the CIS countries is increasing by 3–5% from year to year, except for Ukraine and Moldova citizens. The share of migrants legalized on the labor market changes a little and fluctuates around 70%.
In the study of lifestyle, experts appeal to different aspects of life. By “lifestyle,” some people understand only consumer practices, others focus their attention on civic and political activity, and others depict it through objective characteristics of employment, education, and welfare. Considering the existing approaches, here we present a description of the lifestyle in big cities of Russia, using data from various sources – from official statistics to sample household surveys to present a picture in detail. Special attention is paid to the cases of the two federal cities – Moscow and St. Petersburg, as the most striking examples of the formation of a special urban lifestyle in contemporary Russia.
Macroeconomic dynamics affects incomes of regions’ population and level of poverty: positive shifts in the distribution of regions in relation to these indicators slowed down in the 2010s and were replaced by a negative shift (more apparent in poverty rate) during the crisis of 2014–2017. Income dynamics had a stronger effect on consumption structure and less on population financial behavior. The share of food expenditures is declined in all regions until the 2014 crisis; the most developed regions have the lowest percentage. Structural shift in expenditures in favor of durable goods, including housing, is far from complete in most regions. The increase in the share of expenditures for services is largely due to the growth of tariffs for public utility services. Regional differences are small, with the exception of the Far North regions. The share of spending on human capital reproduction is low and varies slightly between regions. The population of “rich” regions prefers to spend money on recreation and entertainment, but these expenses are shrunken during the last crisis. Individuals' savings behavior is mostly developed in the largest federal cities. Overdue loans are higher in underdeveloped republics and in resource-producing regions, whose population seeks to maintain the level of consumption using loans. The main factor in change structure of consumption and financial behavior is the population incomes, but demographic, settlement and institutional factors must be considered to explain regional differences.