Pilot regions differ considerably acrossstandard of living. It is explained, for example, in particular by the factthat Komi Republic belongs to the so called northern territories. In KomiRepublic income is higher due to the use of regional wage coefficients, levelof prices is higher, the share of monetary income in disposable income ishigher, the share of industries with high level of wages is more pronounced ineconomy. Voronezh and Volgograd Oblasts belong to the territories with highlevel of employment in agriculture and processing industry.
Differences in material well-being of themost and least prosperous groups of population are also strong inside theregions. For example, in Komi Republic in 1998 monetary income of the mostprosperous 10 per cent households amounted to more than 2700 Rub. and surpassedmoney income of the least prosperous 10 per cent of households (166 Rub.) bymore than sixteen times. In Voronezh and Volgograd Oblasts this gap hasreached eleven times. In 1999 that gap has increased.
Analysis of the ratio between the householdconsume resources and monetary income demonstrates that the population ofVoronezh and Volgograd Oblasts to a greater extent depends on getting food fromprivate plots of land than the population of Komi Republic (it is assumed inthe analysis that work on private plots of land is activity that contributes tothe increased consumption). At the same time, the level of benefits andprivileges received by the population in Komi Republic is notablyhigher.
Such ratios are characteristic for thewhole period. Changes taking place in the nominal parameters of income anddisposable income across time can be attributed to the raction to one-timeprice shock of August-September 1998.
Comparison of the amount of benefits andsubsidies received by the richest and poorest groups of households demonstratesthat the size of the subsidy grows as household income increases. That fact isbeing observed during three years in Komi Republic and Volgograd Oblast. It canbe explained by the fact that a considerable part of privileges and subsidiesare being rendered by employers to employees and the number of employed arehigher among better-off than among the impoverished ones. In Voronezh Oblastthe same observation held true in 1997. In later years the highest share ofsubsidies was recorded in the ninth decile group, while in the tenth decile itwas minimal. At the same time, the share of resources received by thehouseholds in-kind from the private plots of land is the highest in tenthdecile. It can be explained by the fact that considerable part of tenth decilein that region comprise households that get most of their resources fromthe private plots of land. The share of employees is higher in ninth decile andprecisely that part of the population has received maximum subsidies in percapita tems.
Comparison of indicators of estimatedsocial transfers in-kind and gross income across decile groups of householdsallows to conclude that there is higher differentiation of subsidies andprivileges received in-kind relative to the income differentiation. The reasonis that subsidies and privileges are linked with employer or enterprise andthose households that have more employed members receive highersubsidies.
The influence of subsidies and privilegeson household budgets is insignificant across income groups. Absolute sizes ofprivileges are especially low in households with disposable income below thepoverty line and their influence on their purchasing power insmall.
As it was noted above, analysis of thestatistical data across the Russian Federation demonstrates inverse dependencebetween the poverty incidence and the share of subsidies and benefitsrecipients
That dependence demonstrates in pilotregions and can be seen in Table 3.7
Money income, the poverty incidence and theshare of recipients of social assistance (subsidies and benefits):
Share of thosereceiving assistance,%
Share of thosereceiving assistance,%
Узнайте, что такое Саентология...
Ваша жизнь поменяется...
According to the data obtained from arandom survey of household budgets thirty four per cent of the householdsacross the Russian Federation included recipients of certain social subsidiesor privileges in 1998.
At the same time, in Komi Republic thatshare surpassed 50 per cent and in Voronezh and Volgograd Oblasts amounted to45 per cent. Moreover, nominal money incomes in Komi Republic were higher andthe poverty line correspondingly lower than in the other two regions. In otherwords, the existing practice is directly determined by the financial capacityof the region. The better the budgetary situation in the region and financialsituation of enterprises and organizations the more they can support theiremployees and dependent family members. That in its turn does not liquidateincome inequality of the households and the population but, on the contrary,increases it.
On the whole, distribution of varioussubsidies and privileges is demonstrated in table 3. 8.
The share of households whose membersreceive social subsidies in per cent
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.