WWW.DISSERS.RU


...
    !

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 62 | 63 || 65 | 66 |   ...   | 117 |

- the ratio of per capita income to the average subsistence minimum of the total population has increased over the period under review by 1.6 times - from 204% in 2001 to 332% in 2010 (304% over 9 months of 2011) - an increase in the average monthly wage to the subsistence minimum of working age population was 1.7 times. From 2001 to 2010 the value of this indicator has increased from 199% to 344% (334% for 9 months. In 2011) - the ratio of monthly pensions to the subsistence level has increased over the years 20012011. 1.8-fold from 89% to 165%1.

It should be noted that unlike the other major indicators of an increase in pension income was very irregular:

- in 2001, the average size of pensions amounted to 89% of the subsistence minimum for a pensioner, - in 2002, the average size of pensions has reached 100% of the subsistence minimum for a pensioner, - in 2003-2004 the growth of that indicator was noted from 102 to 106%, respectively, - in 2005 the average pension again dropped below the subsistence level, however, the lag was only 2%, - in 2006-2007 pensions again rose to the level of 100-102% of the subsistence minimum for pensioners, - periodic increase in pensions in 2008 led to an increased ratio of pensions against the subsistence level to 115% in 2008, 127% in 2009, 165% in 2010 and 161% over 9 months of 2011.

Estimates are based on data for January-November 2011. The data on the average amount of pensions in December 2011 and on average over 2011 have not published so far, but as in December 2011 there was no increase of pensions (the last indexation of pensions was carried out in April 2011), then with high probability we can assume that the average amount of pensions in 2011 will be almost the same as the value of this indicator for January-November 2011.

RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks 400% 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 2011 (9 months) 0% Average per capita incomes Average amount of assigned Average assigned monthly pensions wage Source: estimated as per Rosstat data.

Fig. 2. The dynamics of population incomes against the subsistence minimum in 2001-More dynamic growth of wages, as compared with an increase in the subsistence minimum in the period under review has changed the level of families welfare. For example, a family consisting of two adults and a child (under the assumption that the father is working and mother is looking after a child and if the fathers salary is at average level in the Russian Federation), the wages provided: in 200168% of the family subsistence minimum, in 20022003 7682%; in 200420059091%; in 2006100%; in 2007113%; in 2008121%; in 2009 2010106119%; over 9 months of 2011113% of the family subsistence minimum.

5.1.2. Inequality and Poverty In 2001-2010 inequality in the distribution of monetary income has grown:

- the share of the poorest quintile of the population accounted for:

o in 20012003 5.55.7% of the total income of the population, o in 20042006 5.35.4%, o in 20072010 5.1%;

- the share of the richest fifth quintile of the population accounted for:

o in 20012003 45.746.2% of the total income of the population, o in 20042006 46.747.3%, o in 20072010 47.847.9%;

- the share of the richest tenth decile accounted for:

o in the early 2000s 29.2% of the total income of the population, o in the middle of the period under review 30.130.6% of the total income of the population, o in 20072010 31.031.1% of the total monetary income of population (See Table 4).

Markedly increased during the period under review:

Section Social Sphere - Gini coefficient1 - from 0.397 to 0.423, - Funds coefficient2 - from 13.9 times to 16.8 times, - Decile coefficient - from 6.5 to 7.5 times (See Table 4 and Fig. 3).

Table Distribution of population by per capita income in 2001 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Monetary income, total, 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % including 20% of the population groups:

first (lowest income) 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.second 10.4 10.4 10.3 10.1 10.1 9.9 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.third 15.4 15.4 15.3 15.1 15.1 14.9 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.fourth 22.8 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.7 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.fifth (highest income) 45.7 45.8 46.2 46.7 46.7 47.3 47.9 47.8 47.8 47.Among them 10% of the 29.2 29.3 29.7 30.1 30.1 30.6 31.1 31.1 31 31.population with the highest income Gini coefficient 0.397 0.397 0.403 0.409 0.409 0.416 0.423 0.422 0.422 0.Source: Rosstat data.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Funds coefficient, times Decile coefficient, times Source: Rosstat data.

Fig. 3. The dynamics of funds and decile coefficients in 2001-During January-September 2011, as compared with their levels in the relevant period in 2010 a decrease in inequality was observed, which was reflected in a slight increase in the share of monetary income in total cash income of the first three quintiles of population with the lowest income (0.10.2 p.p. respectively) and the reduced share of the fifth quintile (with the highest income) from 47.2 to 46.8%.

Similar dynamics was observed among 10% of the population groups:

Gini coefficient (an index of income concentration) characterizes the degree of deviation from the level of actual distribution of the total revenue from the level of equal distribution. The coefficient can range from 0 to 1, herewith, the higher is the value of the index, the more uneven is the distribution of income.

Funds coefficient (coefficient of income inequality) demonstrates the degree of social stratification and is defined as the ratio between the average levels of cash income of 10% of the population (employees) against the highest income and 10% of population (employees) with the lowest income.

RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks the share of 10% of the population with the lowest income in the total monetary income of population has increased during the first 9 months of 2011 from 1.9% to 2.0% against the same period in 2010.

however, the share of 10% of the richest population in total monetary incomes of population, which made in January-September of 2010 30.5%, decreased in the same period of 2011 to 30.2% (See Table 5).

The value of Gini coefficient (an index of income concentration) has also decreased from 0.414 to 0.41 and the funds coefficient from 15.8 times to 15.3 times.

Seasonal revenue growth in December 2011 (payment of the thirteenth salary, rewards and bonuses) will lead to an increase in the values of the socio-economic differentiation of the population. However, most likely the annual values of inequality in 2011 will be slightly lower than the values of that indicator for 2010.

Table Distribution of population by per capita income over the nine months of 2010 and 2011 (9 months) 2010 (9 months) Monetary income, total, % 100 including 20% of the population groups::

first (lowest income) 5.4 5.second 10.1 9.third 15.1 fourth 22.6 22.fifth (highest income) 46.8 47.Among them 10% of the population with the highest income 30.2 30.Gini coefficient 0.41 0.Source: Rosstat data.

The number of people with incomes below the poverty level declined from 40m in 2001 to 25.2m in 20042005 and in the pre-crisis 2007 has reached the lowest value for the period of 2001-2007 (18.7m people) (See Fig. 4).

The crisis led to a very small - 0.2m people increase in the number of people with incomes below the poverty level in 2008. In 2009 - 2010. the number of the poor has declined to below pre-crisis level (18.5 and 18.1m people, respectively), which was largely due to the growth in incomes of the population, and especially pensions in the crisis period.

A similar dynamics was observed in the indicator "the share of population with incomes below the subsistence minimum as a percentage of the total population":

- in 2001 the share of people with incomes below the subsistence minimum was 27.5% of the total population;

- in 2004-2005 the poverty level has fell down to 17.6-17.7%;

- In 2007 the poverty rate has dropped to 13.3%.

In 2008 the poverty rate rose by 0.1 p.p. as compared with 2007 and then began to decline - to 13.2% and 12.8% respectively in 2009 and 2010.

The slowdown in the growth of the population monetary income in 2011 was caused by the increased value of the "number of the poor" in Q1 and H1 of 2011, compared with the same periods in 2010, which was not fully offset by the reduced number of the poor in the Q3 2011.

Thus, in Q1 2011 the number of the poor was 22.9m people. (in Q1 2010 - 20.6m people), in H1 2011 - 21.1m people. (in H1 2010 -19.1m people). The "poverty index" had the same trend: the poverty rate made 16.1% in Q1 and 14.9% in H1 2011, as compared with 14.5% and 13.5% over the same periods in 2010 in H3 the index fell down to 12.9%, while over the Section Social Sphere 9 months of 2011 to 14.3% (in Q3 2010 the poverty rate made 13.1%, against 13.4% over months of 2010).

35,29,25,2 25,21,20,18,7 18,18,18,2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (months) Source: Rosstat data.

Fig. 4. The number of population with monetary income below the subsistence minimum in 2001-2011, m of people 27,24,20,20 17,6 17,15,14,13,3 13,13,15 12,2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (months) Source: Rosstat data.

Fig. 5. The share of population with incomes below the subsistence minimum as a% of total population in 2001-2011,% Trends in income progress in the Russian Federation were largely correlated with the dynamics of the indicators in OECD countries.

Virtually in all OECD countries over the period of the 2000s real per capita income has grown, but it should be noted that in countries with the highest rates of growth of that indicator is still significantly lagging behind against level in the Russian Federation:

- in most OECD countries the average per capita real income grew during the period from 2000 to 2008 by 1.1 - 1.25 times;

- in Australia and Poland - by 1.4-1.5 times (See Table 6);

- in the Russian Federation over the same period per capita income grew by 2.2 times.

RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks Table The dynamics of real per capita income of the population in OECD countries In national currency, 2000 rate 2000 2005 2008 2008 vs. 2000 % Japan 3151263 2969538 2963009 Spain 17453 15995 16734 Germany 22222 22426 22080 Portugal 11256 11923 11521 Italy 17644 18200 18240 the Netherlands 23880 25146 24945 Belgium 22026 21781 23100 Denmark 196411 207408 211527 Luxembourg 36813 38926 40055 Israel 66930 67195 73350 France 21695 22850 24197 USA 35111 36473 39377 Switzerland 53223 53152 60058 Mexico 51019 53337 57963 Great Britain 16732 18243 19317 Ireland 24640 28426 28585 Cnada 33822 36435 39492 Sweden 196356 206872 233820 New Zealand 33073 34432 40609 Hungary 1127847 1431086 1393410 Finland 20237 23012 25038 Austria 19817 23956 24530 Czechia 185154 198693 230367 Greece 12899 14642 16399 Norway 256510 284931 327423 Australia 32723 37113 47284 Poland 15907 17400 24114 Source: OECD data. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspxDataSetCode=INEQUALITY.

The dynamics of socio-economic disparities in OECD countries in the period under review was volatile. In half of the countries over 2000-2008 Gini coefficient has declined. The maximum decline in the index value was observed in Greece, Belgium, Spain, Hungary and Mexico, where the value of the Gini coefficient was reduced by 6-11%. In nine countries. Reduction in the values of the Gini coefficient for the period was formed at the level of 1-4%. In a number of OECD countries over the period of 2000-2008 the differentiation of the population by income level has increased: in the Netherlands, Canada, France, Austria and Finland this indicator was formed at the level of 1-5%. In the US. Australia. Sweden. Israel, Switzerland. Czech Republic, Luxembourg - an increase made 6-10%. In Germany the growth of the Gini coefficient - 12% - was the highest in the OECD countries (See Table 7).

In the Russian Federation over the period of 2000-2008 Gini coefficient increased by 6%, which corresponds approximately to the change in the value of this indicator in countries with high differentiation, such as the USA and Australia.

Table Gini coefficient in OECD countries 2000 2005 2008 2008 vs. 1 2 3 4 Australia 0.317 0.315 0.336 1.Austria 0.252 0.265 0.261 1.Belgium 0.289 0.271 0.259 0.Great Britain 0.351 0.331 0.345 0.Hungary 0.293 0.291 0.272 0.Germany 0.264 0.285 0.295 1.Section Social Sphere contd 1 2 3 4 Greece 0.345 0.321 0.307 0.Denmark 0.26 0.268 0.256 0.Israel 0.347 0.378 0.371 1.Ireland 0.304 0.314 0.293 0.Spain 0.342 0.319 0.317 0.Italy 0.343 0.352 0.337 0.Canada 0.318 0.317 0.324 1.Luxembourg 0.261 0.258 0.288 1.Mexico 0.507 0.474 0.476 0.Netherlands 0.292 0.284 0.294 1.New Zealand 0.339 0.335 0.33 0.Norway 0.261 0.276 0.25 0.Poland 0.316 0.349 0.305 0.Portugal 0.356 0.385 0.353 0.USA 0.357 0.38 0.378 1.Finland 0.247 0.254 0.259 1.France 0.287 0.288 0.293 1.Czechia 0.226 0.232 0.248 1.Switzerland 0.243 0.234 0.259 1.Sweden 0.279 0.276 0.303 1.Japan 0.337 0.321 0.329 0.Source: OECD data. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspxDataSetCode=INEQUALITY.

5.2. Migration Processes In 2011, just as it had been in the previous year, Russias migration policy once again became the focus of the governments attention. This happened for a variety of reasons: the exit from the crisis and the special measures undertaken on the labor market during that period;

the pre-election year and the typical for such situations intensification of the migration discourse; and finally, the census results that had turned out to be more positive than expected and the achievements in the demographic policy which, according to some officials, may serve as a proof that Russia does not need immigration.

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 62 | 63 || 65 | 66 |   ...   | 117 |



2011 www.dissers.ru -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .