Civil G8 2006

Civil G8 — is your opportunity
to discuss global problems!

earth

Poverty Reduction

Poverty is not a project


There is not a special program for the poverty reduction problem, which was declared one of the goals by Russian President.

According to the results of 2005 Russians’ incomes have increased by 8,3% compared to the previous year. It was reported by Vladimir Sokolin, head of the RF Federal Statistics Office (Gosstat). The results of the previous year show that the poverty level now comes to 15%. According to the Living Standard Center of Russia this index decreased by 3%. It means that Russia steadily decreases the number of the poor and the task set by President – to decrease the poverty level to half of the present level – is being accomplished. The first year has gone. And it seems it made some progress. But it is only on the face of it.

Real figures mar the first impression.

Experts studying the problem of poverty in Russia warn against trying to make a conclusion out of the formal figures. “Poverty reduction by 3% does not imply that process is going steadily through out of the country. We should keep in mind that the poverty level differs a lot in the regions. In some regions like Ust’-Ordyn and Buryat Autonomous regions, Republic of Ingushetiya and Komi-Perm region, in 2005 the poverty level came to 60-80%, while in the wealthy regions like Tumen’, Moscow and St. Petersburg, it was 15-17%”, said Vyacheslav Bobkov, the manager of the Russian Living Standard Center. The important role of the income differentiation should be considered as well. “The difference between the incomes of the most rich and the poorest has increased since 2000. The average income of the rich is 14,8 times bigger than the average income of the poor”, reports Igor’ Nikolaev, the head of the Strategic Analyses Department.

A lot depends on the way the poverty is measured. In Russia all the calculations are correlated with the minimum living wage. Experts constantly argue whether this is correct or not. But the Government can get confusing numbers in 2007, even if they continue their calculations on the same base. There is a discussion at Health and Social Protection Ministry (“Minzdrav”)about the law that will update the methodology defining the index, below which the person is considered poor. This standard index will be higher than the present one, s the number of the poor will increase and the statistics will look worse. The Minzdrav representative agreed that the Government is not interested in the methodology improvement as than the figures will be worse. But he hopes that the Authorities will try to find compromises with the social organizations.

Of there is no compromises found then the president task will be solved by 2007 only formally. “There are two plan variations for the poverty prognosis – inertial and active. The authorities hope to decrease the number of people with the income lower than the minimum living wage by 9-11%. If we look at the problem only from this perspective than the problem will be solved. But we think that we cannot rely just on administrative data. Because the task was not to halve the number of the people with the income twice lower than the living standard, the task was to decrease the poverty”, comments V. Bobkov.

No body is responsible for the abstract conceptions.

As for the decrease of the number of the poor, this can hardly be solved within two years. There is not special program that would coordinate the activities of different departments. “Poverty is a very broad conception and no particular department or official can be responsible for accomplishing Putin’s task. The poverty prognosis is carried out at the MERT. The calculations are made in Rosstat (Statistic department), the budget salaries are dealt with in the Labour Relationship Department under Minzdrav, Social Security – Department of Social Security development etc.”, said the Minzdrav representative, “We do not have a national poverty reduction program which will say how much money is provided for the poverty reduction. There are only separate measures taken to raise the income of the population”.
Meanwhile, the income increase may not be the best way to reduce poverty. It is necessary to consider all the resources that the population has. Housing poverty comes in the foreground. The Russian Living Standard Center assessments show that there is another layer of the poor – people who have salaries higher than the minimum living wage but they have to put money off for their living space and the rest of the income is lower than the notorious minimum living wage. The problems of the health security, education and agriculture are of the same importance as rural poverty level is twice higher than that of the city poverty.

Social projects are separate from the poverty problem.

Here the question arises – how the national projects are connected to the task of the poverty reduction. As Minzdrav says, there is not such a connection, public health, housing, education or agricultural services do not deal with the poverty problem itself. Nikolaev agreed that national projects approach the poverty question selectively. “As a result of the fact that practitioners’ salary was raised by 10 thousand rubles and that of the nurses by 5 thousand, there is a separate group of medical workers whose salary is growing, and he rest realize that they are poor. Subjective evaluation of the poverty is very important as well”.

Experts ask themselves a question whether the government forgot about the task of the poverty reduction due to the new social projects or maybe it was a substitution. V. Bobko believes that there is still time till 2007, and it is better be spent on the shaping the poverty problem in the frames of the national projects: “It is important that the task set by the president does not turn into a political slogan, which will be solved only according to formal figures. There is a great need in the poverty reduction program”.

Expert opinion

Halter Marek

02.12.06

Halter Marek
Le College de France
Olivier Giscard d’Estaing

02.12.06

Olivier Giscard d’Estaing
COPAM, France
Mika Ohbayashi

02.12.06

Mika Ohbayashi
Institute for Sustainable Energy Poliñy
Bill Pace

02.12.06

Bill Pace
World Federalist Movement - Institute for Global Policy
Peter I. Hajnal

01.12.06

Peter I. Hajnal
Toronto University, G8 Research Group


Contact us |  De | Rus |