Section 5. Social Sphere 5.1. Social Standard of Living 5.1.1. Monetary Income The real disposable income of the population dynamics during the period of 2000-2007 on the average was 11.9% per annum. However, during the crisis period (2008–2009) their annual growth rate fell down to 2.2%.
For the first time in the last ten years in 2009 the wages growth rate was in the negative values domain making –4.4% versus the preceding year. Positive real wages dynamics recovery may be observed starting from Q4 2009. 2010 results demonstrated real wages growth by 4.2% bringing the wages back to the level of 2008.
During 2008-2009 in the acute phase of the crisis the RF government increased social support to certain groups of population, mainly – to pensioners. Outstripping growth rates of real pension values versus wages could be observed over the last three years. In 2010 the real granted pensions’ growth rate made 34.8% versus the preceding year and reached the years’ maximum. As a result, the average value of the granted pensions versus the average wages value increased up to 35.4% versus 27.9% in 2009 and 24.3% in 2008.
I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV -19992000200120022003200420052006200720082009 2010 2008 2009 ---Real accrued wages Real value of granted pensions Real disposable monetary income Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).
Fig. 1. Real disposable income of the population dynamics – by components In 2010 the real disposable income growth rate increased to 4.2% with simultaneous growth of wages and especially – real pensions’ value. The difference in the recovery rates by components defined the specifics of monetary income re-distribution. The most prominent changes in the structure of monetary income of the population in 2010 are associated with deRUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks creasing shares of property-generated income (down to 4.3% of monetary income) and income from entrepreneurial activity (down to до 9.3% of monetary income). Wages account for almost 2/3 of the income of the population and have a dominating impact on social development parameters.
Table Monetary Income of the Population: Structure in 2008–2009, % of the final 2008 2009 quarters quarters year year year I II III IV I II III IV Monetary income – total 100 100 100 100 100 income from entrepreneurial 10,3 9,7 10,5 9,3 10,2 9,0 9,3 9,7 9,0 9,8 8,activity remuneration of labor including 68,3 66,9 67,3 67,2 64,2 68,7 66,4 66,0 65,9 65,1 68,latent wages social benefits 13,2 14,9 14,7 14,5 15,3 14,8 18,0 18,0 18,5 18,7 17,property-generated income 6,2 6,5 5,3 6,8 8,4 5,5 4,3 4,4 4,6 4,4 3,other income 2,0 2,0 2,0 2 1,9 2,0 2,0 1,9 2,0 2,0 2,Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).
The level of poverty during 9 months of 2010 made 13.5% of the total population if Russia (Table 2). The increase of real disposable income of the population in Q4 by 17.1% was to a great extent defined by seasonal factors: paying bonuses and end-of-year allowances in December, etc. It allows for the following assumption: the level of poverty in Q4 decreased so much, that the annual poverty indicator is lower versus 2009 by 0.1–0.5 %.
Table Number of Russian citizens with income below the minimal subsistence level, total in 2009- Mln. pers. % to the total population size Q1 24.5 17.H1 21.1 15.January-September 19.7 14.Year 18.5 13.Q1 20.6 14.H1 19.1 13.January-September 18.9 13.Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).
The inequality of income was increasing in the Russian Federation during the entire period of economic growth, but in 2008–2010 it practically stabilized at the level of 2007. Income concentration index (Gini coefficient) decreased in 2009 down to 0.422 and in 2010 was at the level of 0.423; fund factor demonstrated some shrinkage in 2009, then was back to the level of 2007 and in 2010 made 16.7 times (Fig. 2 and 3). In 2010 10% of the most well-to-do citizens received for 31.1% of the total monetary income; while 10% of the poorest citizens received 1.9% of the total monetary income.
In 2001–2007 inequality was growing due to redistribution of revenues in favor of the fifth quintile of the population (with the highest income): the share of this group in the total amount of monetary income of Russian population increased by 2.1 percentage points during 2001–2007 (from 45.8 to 47.9%); at the same time the shares of all other groups of citizens Section 5.
Social Sphere with lower incomes decreased. The first three quintiles of the population demonstrated the biggest shrinkage of their shares in the total monetary income:
1st quintile – from 5.6% to 5.1% the total amount of monetary income of the population 2nd quintile – from 10.4% to 9.7%;
3rd quintile – from 15% to 14.8%.
Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).
Fig. 2. Concentration of citizens’ income1 in the RF during 2000–Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) Fig. 3: differentiation of the RF citizens’ income2 in 2000– Citizens’ income concentration index (Gini coefficient) characterizes the extent of deviation of the actual distribution of the total income curve from their equal distribution curve. Величина The coefficient value may vary between 0 and 1, the higher one reflecting the increased inequality of income distribution.
Income spread factor (fund factor) is defined as the ratio between average incomes of 10% of the population (employed) with the highest income and 10% of the population (employed) with the lowest income.
RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks 5.1.2. Public Expenditure In 2010 the total monetary income of the RF population made RUR 31,598.6 bln. demonstrating 11.1% growth versus 2009. Citizens spent RUR 22,052.9 bln to buy goods and services which is 11.5% more vs. the preceding year. The amount of savings during this period made RUR 5,785.9 bln, which is 4.0% more than in 2009.
Inflation affected the dynamics and the profile of household expenses significantly. Starting from the beginning of 2010 headline inflation made 108.8% being I line with the preceding year indicators. Due to various factors affecting the dynamics of prices in certain segments of consumer market, the inflation profile was also subject to significant change. Food products prices increased by 12.9% in 2010; at the same time the prices growth rate for nonfood products decreased by 5.0% and for services – by 8.1% (Table 3).
Table Consumer Price (Tariff) Index for Goods and Services, December versus December of the preceding year, % All goods and including Year services food products non-food products services 2000 120.2 117.9 118.5 133.2001 118.6 117.1 112.7 136.2002 115.1 111.0 110.9 136.2003 112.0 110.2 109.2 122.2004 111.7 112.3 107.4 117.2005 110.9 109.6 106.4 121.2006 109.0 108.7 106.0 113.2007 111.9 115.6 106.5 113.2008 113.3 116.5 108.0 115.2009 108,8 106,1 109,7 111,2010 108,8 112,9 105,0 108,Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).
The share of goods/services expenses in the monetary income profile was practically in the same low level as one year and made 69.8% including 54.4% share of goods expenses versus 53.6% (Table 4).
Table Monetary Income of Population Utilization Structure, % including used for:
Social Sphere The incomes of the population were growing at a moderate rate; and as for expenditures – the main share fell on buying food and basic necessities. As a result, the share of food products including beverages and tobacco products in the overall retail turnover profile grew up to 48.7% in 2010 and exceeded 2008 figure by 1.8 percentage points with respective shrinkage of non-food products’ share.
In general in 2010 the turnover of food products market increased by 5.1%, and the turnover of non-food products market – by 3.8% (Fig. 4). It resulted in food products market turnover exceeding 2008 turnover by 3.4%. The non-food products market and services market turnover made 95.4% and 97.1% of 2008 turnover respectively.
25,20,15,10,5,0,2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -5,-10,Food products turn over Non-food products turnover Public services Retail services Source: Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat).
Fig. 4. Turnover dynamics in retail and services during 2000–2010, % to the preceding year It should be noted that increasing the citizens’ inclination towards saving is a distinctive feature of 2009–2010 period.
Citizens used different instruments for saving their cash. In 2009 5.5% of the monetary income was used to buy foreign currency, but in 2010 this indicator decreased down to 3.7% while at the same time the share of savings in deposits and securities increased up to 7.7% of monetary income of the population. Total share of savings in monetary income of the population in 2010 made 14.6%.
The following factors had a material effect on the citizens’ savings dynamics: inflation, FOREX change and situation in the real estate market (housing commissioning slowed down). Total citizens’ investment into participatory construction in 2010 made RUR 69.6 bln decreasing by RUR 10.3 bln versus 2009 and making of 2008 amount.
The key areas for citizens to use their savings – same as during two previous years – are acquisition of real property and housing improvements. This underpins the trend towards re RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks ducing of arrears in housing loans and mortgages at the expense of citizens’ savings, which could be observed starting from Q2 2009. This trend is developing in the environment of tightening credit terms by the banks. The amount of loans issued by credit institutions to individuals in rubles and in foreign currency for buying housing in 2010 made RUR 417.8 and RUR 19.2 bln respectively, versus RUR 170 bln and RUR 11.9 bln in 2009.
Public surveys conducted by Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) in Q4 2010 reflect the improvement of consumer expectations.
5.2. Unemployment and New Lines of Inclusion of the Unemployed in Employment in Russia 5.2.1. Review of the Unemployment in 2010.
In 2010, the situation on the labor market started to improve as compared to that in when the main parameters of the labor market got discernibly worse (Table 5 and Fig. 5):
• The number of the employed in the economy in a situation of a slight decrease in the number of the economically active population increased which factor resulted in growth of 1 % in the share of the employed in the number of the economically active population from 91.7% to 92.6%;
• The number of the unemployed calculated on the basis of ILO methods1 decreased from 6.3 million to 5.6 million people2. As a result the level of unemployment went down from 8.4% to 7.5%;
• The registered unemployment which sharply increased in 2009 started to go down from 2.1 million people to 1.9 million people. In 2010, the level of unemployment in average monthly estimates amounted to 2.5%.
Table Dynamics of the number of the economically active population in 2007–2010 period, million of people, monthly average Economically active Including The registered unemployed population employed unemployed 2007 75.1 70.5 4.6 1.2008 75.8 71 4.8 1.2009 75.7 69.4 6.3 2.2010 75.4 69.8 5.6 1.The source: Rosstat.
The value of the ratio of tension on the labor market dramatically increased from 1.3 unemployed persons per a vacant job in October 2008 to 3.1 unemployed persons per a vacant job in January 2010, while in 2010 it began to go down and amounted to 1.8 unemployed persons per a vacant job in December (see Fig. 6).
According to the ILO methods, the unemployed are considered those people who have neither job nor gainful employment or those who look for a job and are ready to start working.
With monthly average of the year.
Social Sphere 8,7,6,6,2,2,2,1,The level of unemployment The level of registered unemployment 2007 2008 2009 The source: Rosstat.
Fig. 5. The level of general unemployment and the level of registered unemployment (monthly average, %) 3,3,2,2,2,1,1,5 1,1,1 0,Аpr. 2008 Oct. 2008 Аpr. 2009 Oct. 2009 Jan. 2010 Аug. 2010 Dec. The source: The Ministry of Health and Social Development of Russia.
Fig. 6. Dynamics of the ratio of tension on the labor market (the number of the unemployed per a vacant job) According to the results of the sample survey of households as regards employment (such a survey is carried out by Rosstat on a regular basis), as of the second week of January 2011:
• the number of the employed population increased by 1.9 million people or 2.8% from the beginning of 2010;
• the number of the unemployed decreased by 1.1 million people or 16.4%;
• the number of the economically active population at the age of 15 to 72 years old amounted to 75.3 million people, including:
- 69.6 million employed, - 5.7 million unemployed according to the ILO methods of calculation.
In the gender structure of the unemployment, men dominate among the unemployed: under the ILO methods, their share among the unemployed amounts to 55%. With the level of gen RUSSIAN ECONOMY IN trends and outlooks eral unemployment amounting to 7.2% in December 2010, the share of the unemployed among men amounted to 7.7% in December 2010, while that among women, to 6.7% (in January 2001 it was 7.6% and 7.0%, respectively).
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.