Distribution in a market economy. Income distribution and equity issues in a market economy. Problems of income inequality in society

The level of people's well-being is characterized, first of all, by the income they receive. It is income that determines our opportunities for food and clothing, education and medical services; opportunities to visit theaters and purchase books, actively travel around the world, etc. The concept of income is broader than the concept of wages, since income can also contain other cash receipts.

Income of the population is the material resources available to the population to meet their needs.

Income is considered at different levels using three main indicators.

1. Nominal income is the total amount of money that is received by (or credited to) individuals during a given period. The structure of this income includes such elements as factor income, that is, those obtained from the use of one’s own factors of production - wages, rent, interest, profit; payments and benefits through government social programs (transfers); plus other income - interest on bank deposits, dividends on shares, insurance amounts, lottery winnings, etc.
2. Unlike nominal, disposable income represents only that part of the nominal that can be used directly for personal consumption of goods and services, as well as for savings. In other words, disposable income is equal to nominal income minus taxes and other mandatory payments (contributions to the pension fund, social needs, etc.).
3. Real income - reflects the purchasing power of our monetary income. It represents the quantity of goods and services (in value terms) that can be purchased with disposable income over a given period (that is, it takes into account possible price changes).

In other words, this is an individual “consumption basket” available to each person (according to the income he has). The main items of income for the majority of the population are wages and transfer payments. The relationship between them significantly influences the economic behavior of people. In particular, when earnings predominate in the income structure, this stimulates a person’s labor activity, his diligence, initiative, and entrepreneurship. When the role of transfers increases, people become more passive in relation to production activities and become infected with the psychology of dependency. Therefore, the directions and amounts of state social assistance must be thoughtful, balanced and strictly targeted.

Income is a monetary assessment of the results of the activities of an individual (or legal entity) as a subject of a market economy. In economic theory, income means a sum of money that regularly and legally comes to the direct disposal of a market subject.

Income is always represented by money. This means that the condition for receiving it is effective participation in the economic life of society: we live on a salary or through our own entrepreneurial activities, in any case we must do something useful for other people. Only then will they transfer to us part of the money at their disposal (just as we do not part with our money without acquiring in return something useful specifically for us).

Consequently, the very fact of receiving monetary income is objective evidence of the participation of a given person in the economic life of society, and the amount of income is an indicator of the scale of such participation. The direct dependence of income on the results of market activity is violated only in one case when it is objectively impossible to participate in it (pensioners, young people of working age, disabled people, dependents, the unemployed). These categories of the population are supported by the entire society, on behalf of which the government regularly pays them cash benefits. These payments, of course, form a special element of total income, but, strictly speaking, they are not market ones. This means that it is largely determined by the coincidence of the goods and services we offer with the demand presented by other people. The interaction of supply and demand is an objective mechanism for the formation of income in a market economy. Of course, in such a mechanism there are elements of random and therefore unfair, but there is no other way to generate income in a market economy.

Market distribution of income based on the competitive mechanism of supply and demand for factors of production leads to the fact that the remuneration of each factor occurs in accordance with its marginal product. Naturally, this mechanism does not guarantee equality in the distribution of income, and in reality, in countries with developed market economies, there is significant inequality in their distribution.

Finance represents economic relations associated with the formation, distribution and use of centralized and decentralized funds of funds in order to perform the functions and tasks of the state and ensure conditions for expanded reproduction.

Centralized finance refers to economic relations associated with the formation and use of state funds accumulated in the state budget system and government extra-budgetary funds; decentralized finance refers to monetary relations that mediate the circulation of enterprise funds.

Finance is an integral part of monetary relations, therefore their role and meaning depend on the place monetary relations occupy in economic relations. However, not all monetary relations express financial relations. Finance differs from money, both in content and in the functions performed.

Money is a universal equivalent, with the help of which the labor costs of associated producers are primarily measured, and finance is an economic instrument for the distribution and redistribution of gross domestic product (GDP) and national income (NI), a tool for controlling the formation and use of funds of funds. Their main purpose is to ensure, through the formation of cash income and funds, not only the needs of the state and enterprises for funds, but also control over the expenditure of financial resources.

Finance expresses the monetary relations that arise between:

- enterprises in the process of acquiring inventory, selling products and services;
- enterprises and higher organizations when creating centralized funds of funds and their distribution;
- by the state and enterprises when they pay taxes to the budget system and finance expenses;
- by the state and citizens when they make taxes and voluntary payments;
- enterprises and citizens and extra-budgetary funds when making payments and receiving resources;
- individual parts of the budget system;
- property and personal insurance bodies, enterprises and the public when paying insurance premiums and compensation for damage, upon the occurrence of an insured event;

The main material source of monetary income and funds is the country's income - the newly created value or the value of GDP minus the tools and means of production consumed in the production process. The volume of ND determines the possibility of meeting national needs and expanding social production. It is by taking into account the size of the income tax and its individual parts - the consumption fund and the accumulation fund - that the proportions of economic development and its structure are determined.

Without financial participation, ND cannot be distributed. Finance is an integral link between the creation and use of ND.

A modern economy cannot exist without public finance. At certain stages of historical development, a number of needs of society can only be financed by the state - the nuclear industry, space research, a number of new sectors of the economy, as well as enterprises that are necessary for everyone (post office, telegraph, etc.). Finance reflects the level of development of productive forces in individual countries and the possibility of their influence on macroeconomic processes in economic life. The state of the country's economy determines the state of finances. In conditions of constant economic growth, an increase in GDP and income, finance is characterized by its sustainability and stability; they stimulate further development of production and improvement of the quality of life of the country's citizens.

In the context of an economic crisis, a decline in production, and rising unemployment, the state of finances is sharply deteriorating, which is expressed in large budget deficits financed by internal and external government loans, the issue of money, as well as an increase in public debt and expenditures on it. All this entails the development of inflation, disruption of economic ties, an increase in mutual non-payments, an increase in barter transactions, difficulties in mobilizing taxes, the impossibility of timely financing of government expenditures, and a decrease in the living standards of large sections of the population. Therefore, the primary role in economic and social relations belongs to the state of the real sphere of production.

8.1. Income and its distribution in a market economy. 8.2. Income differentiation in a market economy. 8.3. The problem of inequality and economic efficiency. 8.4. The problem of poverty.

This topic will examine the distribution of income in a market system. As shown above, the distribution of income is determined by the ownership of economic resources (see Topic 2) and the efficiency of their use in production (see Topic 7). It is also intended to cover in more detail the issues of personal distribution and the relationship between distribution and the economic efficiency of production.

8.1. Income and its distribution in a market economy.

8.1.1. Functional distribution of income.

Income - It is the total receipts or cash received by individuals or households over a specified period of time. In a market economy, the distribution of income is the result of the distribution of economic resources. Functional distribution of income characterizes the distribution of income between factors of production: the income of each economic resource is determined by its productivity, which is reflected in the structure total national income. As statistics show, during the 20th century there was an increase in the capital-labor ratio, labor productivity and the share of wages in total national income increased significantly. The following were typical for the USA: trends in functional income distribution: 1. Increase in the share of wages in national income: from 60.3% in 1929 to 73.9% in 1985. 2. Decrease in the share of entrepreneurial income (income of independent farms). 3. Declining share of property income distribution.

8.1.2. Personal income distribution.

Personal income sharing represents the distribution of income among individual households that receive income from various economic resources at their disposal. Personal income - This is the total amount of money earned by an individual or household over a given period of time. Its components:

 income from labor;

 income from property (depends on accumulated wealth);

 government transfer payments.

Wealth - This is the net value of assets owned by households at a given point in time (that is, minus debts). It includes:

 tangible assets: house, car, durable goods, land, etc.;

 financial assets: cash, savings accounts, bonds and stocks. Transfer payments - government payments, in response to which recipients are not required to provide any goods and services (scholarships, allowances, benefits, etc.). Disposable personal income represents total personal income minus taxes paid to the government.

8.2. Income differentiation in a market economy.

8.2.1. Assessing the level of income differentiation.

Income in a market economy is distributed unevenly, which is associated with different returns from the economic resources owned by households, as well as with different productivity and intensity of economic activity of individual entities. The level of income differentiation is measured by the following instruments: Lorenz curve, Gini index, decile coefficient. Lorenz curve shows how evenly current income is distributed. To construct the Lorenz curve, the entire population, depending on income level, is divided into 5 groups (quintels). The first group is 20% of families with the lowest incomes. The fifth group is 20% of families with the highest incomes. Absolute equality is observed when the first group has the same total income as the fifth (diagonal squared). Absolute inequality is observed when all total income falls on one person (sides of the square).

Figure 1. Absolute equality and absolute inequality according to the Lorenz Curve.

The actual distribution of income is shown by the Lorenz curve. USA, 1992.

		Distribution
	less than 12664


Fourth
	58200 and above

Figure 2. Income distribution, USA, 1992.

Corrections to the Lorenz curve: 1. The concept of current personal income is narrow. It does not take into account in-kind payments and benefits, as well as progressive taxation. If these factors are taken into account, the Lorenz curve will flatten. 2. Current period is too short to assess the evenness of income distribution. Taking into account lifetime income also flattens the Lorenz curve. Factors: Poorer young families and retirees, there may be temporary setbacks. Lorenz Bow: The stretch limit occurs when the bottom 40% of the population receives 12-13% of total income. Gini index - index of concentration of current monetary income of the population = area of the triangle between the line of absolute equality and the Lorenz curve / area of the triangle between the line of absolute equality and absolute inequality. 0 - absolute equality; 1 - absolute inequality.

Decile coefficient shows how many times the income of 10% of the high-paid part of the population exceeds the income of 10% of the low-paid part (in terms of wages, in terms of total income). Russia, 1997 -13.2.

Income is usually understood as the amount of money received over a certain period of time and intended for the purchase of goods and services for personal consumption.

Due to the fact that in a market economy the main part of consumer goods is sold for money, the level of consumption of the population is determined mainly by the level of income.

In this case, it is necessary to distinguish between nominal, disposable and real income. Nominal income is the entire amount of money income that does not depend on taxation and price changes. The amount of nominal income after taxes is disposable income. Real income is the amount of goods and services that can be purchased with disposable income. Those. real income is disposable income taking into account price levels and inflation.

The main income channels are:

Labor income of workers - payment of labor as a factor of production used in the production process;

Entrepreneurial income is income remaining at the disposal of an economic entity engaged in entrepreneurial activity with or without the formation of a legal entity, after reimbursement of material costs incurred and payment of interest;

Income from property in the form of interest on deposits, dividends, rent, etc.;

Socialized incomes coming regardless of labor contribution (payments from public consumption funds; transfer payments coming from the state - unemployment benefits, social insurance payments, etc.);

Income from the shadow economy, i.e. from the totality of unrecorded and illegal or equivalent types of economic activity.

In countries with developed market economies, all income is divided into two groups: income received from participation in labor and entrepreneurial activity (wages and profits), and the so-called unearned income acquired legally (interest, dividends, rent, etc.). ). A feature of the last decade is the rapid growth of unearned income, which is facilitated by a multiple increase in the number of shareholders among various segments of the population. Taken together, such income represents payment for those factors of production that are involved in production.

In the period of transition to a market economy, the equal distribution of income, called “distribution according to labor,” gradually gives way to market principles of distribution. At the same time, the state at the macro level is obliged to create the conditions necessary for earning income. It should be noted that a significant part of the funds from the shadow economy has been legalized, and therefore, along with a decrease in equalization in the current income of the population, their progressive differentiation is observed. Unfortunately, very often the new source of income is not the sphere of production, but of circulation. Today, the possibility of obtaining higher incomes does not depend on abilities, competence and qualifications, but on proximity to one or another channel of privileged distribution, successful organization, skillful use of personal contacts and ordinary monopoly. Despite the fact that there are general principles for the formation of income, the conditions for their differentiation also remain, and consequently, the standard of living differs.

Several methods are used to analyze the degree of income differentiation. Thus, the functional distribution of income shows the share of national income that falls on one or another factor of production. The distribution of income by its value reflects the distribution of income generated in a country among households and individuals.

Today, the Lorenz curve is used to measure income inequality. To construct it, the percentage of families with a certain level of income is plotted on the horizontal axis, and the share of total income accruing to the corresponding part of families is plotted on the vertical axis (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Lorenz curve

Combining the shares of total income for different percentages of families will give us a Lorenz curve showing the degree of inequality in the income distribution.

The theoretical possibility of absolute equality in income distribution, when 20% of families have 20% of total income, 40% - 40% of income, etc., is reflected by direct AR. The gap between the line of absolute equality AR and the line of actual distribution indicates the degree of income inequality.

It should be noted that cash income after taxes and taking into account transfer payments is distributed much more evenly.

The degree of inequality in income distribution can be quantified using the Gini coefficient, defined as the ratio of the area of the shaded figure M to the area of the triangle ABC (see Figure 1). Obviously, the greater the deviation of the Lorentz curve from the bisector, the larger the area of the figure M will be and, therefore, the more the Gini coefficient will approach unity. In most developed countries, the Gini coefficient ranges from 0.27 to 0.33.

To assess income differentiation, a widely used indicator is the decile coefficient, which expresses the ratio between the average incomes of the 10% of the highest paid citizens and the average incomes of the 10% of the least wealthy.

Causes of inequality in income distribution primarily include differences in ability, level of education, professional tastes, ownership of property, degree of market power, as well as luck, personal connections, misfortune and discrimination. It should be noted that differences in income levels may not depend on the employee himself and the quality of his work. Such factors include family size, the ratio of the number of workers and dependents in the family, health status, natural conditions, etc.

As an analysis of the listed reasons for inequality in income distribution shows, they are both objective and subjective in nature. What should society strive for: income equalization or differentiation?

The argument for income equality is the principle of utility maximization. The fact is that consumers spend their income first on those goods that have the greatest utility. Then, after satisfying primary needs, the remaining income is spent on goods with lower marginal utility. Therefore, the optimal distribution of income means distribution equally, which ensures the maximum possible total utility in society. In addition, the state's income equalization policy is socially attractive.

The main argument against income equality is the gradual destruction of the motivational mechanism, and consequently, losses in the volume of output and labor productivity.

The problems of poverty and social justice in society are also related to the problems of income differentiation. Even T. Malthus considered poverty an inevitable result of the discrepancy between population growth and decreasing supplies of means of subsistence. Increasing resource productivity and birth control disproved this theory.

K. Marx, criticizing Malthus for transferring biological laws of development to society, recognized poverty as an inevitable companion of capitalist society. K. Marx predicted that as a result of the pursuit of profit, the poor would become poorer and the rich would become richer. This theory also has not been confirmed in real life.

During the development of economic science, numerous criteria for combining efficiency and fairness in the distribution of resources, income and products were proposed. Among them, the most widely used criteria are those proposed by V. Pare and J. Rawls.

V. Pareto considers the state of the economy optimal if production and distribution cannot be changed in such a way that the welfare of at least one individual increases without reducing the welfare of others. Preferable, according to Pareto, is a combination of welfare in which an increase in the welfare of at least one person does not cause a decrease in the welfare of others.

According to J. Rawls, inequality in income distribution is justified to the extent that it contributes to the growth of incomes of low-paid groups of the population.

1) egalitarian, means complete equality, equalization in distribution and income;

2) Rawlsian, associated with the name of J. Rawls, a modern American philosopher who believes that relative economic inequality is acceptable only when it contributes to the achievement of a higher absolute standard of living by the poorest members of society;

3) utilitarian, the founder of which is I. Bentham, an English economist, author of the doctrine of utilitarianism. According to the utilitarian principle, the majority of wealth should go to the member of society who is able to derive greater satisfaction (utility) from it. Thus, I. Bentham assumes that distribution should occur according to individual utility functions;

4) market, means the correspondence of the income of each owner of production factors to the marginal product obtained from these factors.

It should be noted that no economy, including a market economy, by itself is able to solve the problem of poverty. This function is primarily assumed by the state, redistributing already distributed income.

Methods of redistribution of income by the state include:

Carrying out appropriate fiscal policy among the owners of the main factors of production, i.e. differentiated collection of taxes on profits and personal income. As a result, the state gets the opportunity to make transfer payments to the least protected segments of the population, stimulate entrepreneurship and increase production efficiency, create public consumption funds, a special fund for social protection of the population, and implement state social protection programs;

Establishing maximum prices for essential goods, minimum wage rates, subsidizing certain industries and productions.

In general, we can say that it is necessary to find an option that will combine social peace with sustainable economic growth.

In the period of transition to a market economy, due to the rapid rise in prices, it is necessary to ensure a balance between relatively fixed incomes and an increase in the cost of living. Ways to achieve such compliance are compensation, adaptation and income indexation.

Compensation is a reimbursement to the population of part of the additional costs caused by an increase in retail prices for groups of goods that are in mass demand. In this case, only a certain consumption rate is compensated. Compensation is differentiated and aimed at socially vulnerable segments of the population.

Adaptation is an increase in fixed payments (pensions, benefits, scholarships, minimum wage) as the cost of living increases.

Income indexation is an automatic adjustment of nominal income with a change in the price index in accordance with a pre-approved methodology. In the republic, income indexation is carried out in accordance with the law on income indexation taking into account inflation. Indexation of cash income is carried out if the consumer price index, calculated on an accrual basis since the previous indexation, exceeds 5%.

The indexed values can be wages, savings, social payments and benefits, and the income tax scale. In conditions of inflation, indexation can only be partial. In the Republic of Belarus, an amount of two minimum wages included in the actual salary is fully indexed, the excess of this amount up to four minimum wages is indexed by 50%, income in excess of this amount is not indexed.

1) Depending on the dynamics of consumer price levels, income is divided into:

Nominal income is the amount of money received in a certain period by an individual; it also characterizes the level of cash income regardless of taxation; Nominal cash incomes are calculated in prices of the current period. They do not determine the amount of material goods and services available to the population at the current level of income. These include:

v income of persons engaged in entrepreneurial activities;

v receipts from the sale of agricultural products;

v pensions, benefits, scholarships and other social transfers;

v insurance claims, loans and advances;

v income from property in the form of interest on deposits, securities, dividends;

v household income from the sale of foreign currency;

v balance (money received through transfers), etc.

Disposable income is income that can be used for personal consumption and personal savings. Disposable income is less than nominal income by the amount of taxes and mandatory payments.

Unlike nominal expenditures, household disposable income is the sum of current income used by households to finance the final consumption of goods and services. This is an indicator of the volume of economic resources available to the population to meet the needs of citizens (the maximum amount that can be spent by the population on consumption, provided that during a given period the population does not attract accumulated financial and non-financial assets and does not increase financial liabilities).

Real - represents the amount of goods and services that can be purchased with disposable income during a certain period; Real income is the monetary income of citizens, calculated taking into account real prices for goods and services and taxes levied. Usually determined by the amount of goods that can be purchased with the income received.

(More clear in Figure 1).

Figure 1 – Types of income depending on the price level

To measure the volume, level and structure of the population's income, indicators such as personal disposable income (PDI), per capita cash income of the population, and the purchasing power of cash income are also used.

Personal disposable income is the total amount of cash income that its owners allocate for consumption and savings.

Average per capita cash income is calculated as the ratio of the total cash income of the population for the year (or current period) to the average annual population.

When studying the standard of living, it is important to assess the potential capabilities of the population to use resources for the acquisition and consumption of relevant goods and resources. For this purpose, the purchasing power indicator is used (calculated both for the entire population and for individual groups).

2) depending on government intervention:

Ø primary, formed under the influence of the market mechanism;

Ø secondary, the formation of which is associated with the redistribution policy of the state.

The main sources of income for the majority of the population are wages and transfer payments. The relationship between them significantly influences the economic behavior of people. In particular, when earnings predominate in the income structure, this stimulates a person’s labor activity, his diligence, initiative, and entrepreneurship. When the role of transfers increases, people become more passive in relation to production activities and become infected with the psychology of dependency. Therefore, the directions and amounts of state social assistance must be thoughtful, balanced and strictly targeted.

The income of the population is:

1) Household income - all types of cash and in-kind income received in the form of remuneration for hired work, from personal subsidiary plots, self-employment, cash receipts from the financial and credit system, etc. Household disposable income is the amount of current income that can be used by households to finance final consumption of goods and services or savings. Household disposable income is defined as primary income less taxes and mandatory payments, plus the balance of current transfers.

2) Transfer payments (transfers) - the movement of funds from one owner to another without receiving goods and services in exchange. In relation to the problem under consideration, transfers are mandatory payments to the population: pensions, benefits, compensation, and other social payments established by law. All of the above are transfer payments from the state budget. However, private transfer payments also take place (monthly subsidies received by students from home, gifts from wealthy relatives, etc.).

3) Wages – monetary remuneration paid by the employer for the work performed by the employee. Regulated by an employment contract.

Depending on who the employer is or depending on the nature of the services provided, it can be called differently: salary (civilian officials), allowance (military personnel), salary (managerial personnel), earnings (domestic servants), etc.

It can be accrued either in proportion to labor productivity (piecework) or in proportion to time worked (time-based). Some additives and elements replacing it are equated to wages themselves: regular bonuses, incentive payments, sickness benefits, severance pay in case of dismissal, etc. Various forms are used (bonus, lump sum, collective, individual).

Different countries and different periods have different systems for generating household income. Most often, the following four basic principles of income distribution in society are distinguished:

ü Equal distribution - it occurs when all members of society (or a certain part of it) receive equal income or benefits. This principle is typical for primitive societies, as well as for countries with a regime that Marx and Engels defined as “barracks communism.” In the literature you can find another, book name for this principle – egalitarian distribution. Since people differ in their abilities and energy, equalization of the remuneration of their labor inevitably gives rise to a situation where “one plants a vineyard, and another eats its fruits.”

ü Market distribution assumes that each of the owners of one or another factor of production (labor, entrepreneurial abilities, land, capital) receives a different income - in accordance with the economic utility and productivity of their factor. Thus, in relation to the owners of labor power (that is, hired workers), the well-known principle of distribution according to labor applies. It means that the amount of income of each worker depends on the specific market assessment of the significance of this type of work, as well as on its final results (how much, what, how and what quality is produced).

ü Distribution according to accumulated property - it manifests itself in the receipt of additional income by those who accumulate and inherit any property (land, enterprises, houses, securities and other property).

Introduction

Assessing indicators of the dynamics and structure of income of the population is the most important element in the development of comprehensive forecasts. Income and purchasing power of the population have not only social significance - as components of the standard of living, but also as factors determining the life expectancy itself. They are very significant as an element of economic recovery, which determines the capacity of the domestic market. A capacious domestic market, secured by effective demand, is a powerful incentive to support domestic producers.

Low income levels, and, as a consequence, low purchasing power of the bulk of the population, are one of the main reasons for the stagnation of the Russian economy.

It is obvious that in order to revive the economy, it is necessary to create effective demand through an increase in the share of household income in the total income of society - GDP. Basically, to revive the domestic market and support domestic producers, it is strategically important to increase the incomes of the poorest and middle part of the population. An increase and, of course, timely payment of wages, pensions, scholarships and other social benefits is necessary for economic recovery. This is what justifies relevance considered ia of this topic.

Relevance allows you to determine research topic– income distribution

Based on the topic, we can identify purpose of the study– income distribution and the problem of fairness in a market economy.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

Give the concept of population income, its structure and indicators;

Reveal the principles of income distribution in society;

Find out the problems of income inequality in society;

Identify problems in measuring income inequality, causes and factors of inequality;

Conduct observation and find out what is the degree of income distribution in the Russian economy;

When solving the assigned problems, the following were used methods as: observation, generalization, comparison, induction, deduction.

Subject of research– fairness of income distribution.

Object of study– market economy.

Methodology: In this course work, the works of such scientists as: M. N. Chepurin, V. I. Vidyapin, L. M. Kulikov and others were used.

This course work consists of an introduction, sections 1 and 2, a conclusion and a list of references.

. Theoretical foundations of income distribution and problems of justice in a market economy

1.1 Income distribution in a market economy

1.1.1 Population income: concept, structure and indicators

Population income is the material resources available to the population to meet their needs. Income is considered at different levels using three main indicators. (Appendix 1):

1. Nominal income is the total amount of money that is received by (or credited to) individuals during a given period. The structure of this income includes such elements as factor income, that is, those obtained from the use of one’s own factors of production - wages, rent, interest, profit; payments and benefits through government social programs (transfers); plus other income - interest on bank deposits, dividends on shares, insurance amounts, lottery winnings, etc. (Appendix 2).

2. Unlike nominal, disposable income represents only that part of the nominal that can be used directly for personal consumption of goods and services, as well as for savings. In other words, disposable income is equal to nominal minus taxes and other mandatory payments (contributions to the pension fund, social needs, etc.).

3. Real income - reflects the purchasing power of our monetary income. It represents the quantity of goods and services (in value terms) that can be purchased with disposable income over a given period (that is, it takes into account possible price changes). In other words, this is an individual “consumption basket” available to each person (according to the income he has).

1.1.2 Principles of income distribution in society

Different countries and different periods have different systems for generating income for the population. Most often, the following four basic principles of distribution are distinguished (Appendix 3):

1. Equalization distribution. It occurs when all members of society (or a certain part of it) receive equal income or benefits. This principle is typical for primitive societies, as well as for countries with a regime that Marx and Engels defined as “barracks communism.” In the literature you can find another, book name for this principle – egalitarian distribution. Since people differ in their abilities and energy, equalization of the remuneration of their labor inevitably gives rise to a situation where “one plants a vineyard, and another eats its fruits.”

2. Market distribution assumes that each of the owners of one or another factor of production (labor, entrepreneurial abilities, land, capital) receives a different income - in accordance with the economic utility and productivity of their factor. Thus, in relation to the owners of labor power (that is, hired workers), the well-known principle of distribution according to labor applies. It means that the amount of income of each worker depends on a specific market assessment of the significance of this type of work, as well as on its final results (how much, what, how and what quality is produced).

3. Distribution by accumulated property. It manifests itself in the receipt of additional income by those who accumulate and inherit any property (land, enterprises, houses, securities and other property).

4. Privileged distribution This is especially true for countries with undeveloped democracies and civilly passive societies. There, rulers arbitrarily redistribute public goods in their favor, arranging for themselves increased salaries and pensions, improved living conditions, work, treatment, recreation and other benefits. Montaigne is right: “it is not need, but rather abundance that gives rise to greed in us.”

In reality, all four principles considered are often combined in different ways. For example, in the USSR, egalitarianism prevailed for the “working masses,” while various privileges existed for the top of the Communist Party (CPSU) and the state apparatus. While the “masses” experienced the hardships of low incomes, commodity shortages, overcrowded communal apartments, dormitories, basements, etc., the nomenklatura elite had high incomes, luxury apartments, cars, dachas, excellent food and living conditions. However, whatever the distribution system, in any modern society inequality of people's incomes is inevitable.

1.1.3 Problems of income inequality in society

Voltaire also reminded us that we have long ceased to live in that “golden age when people were born with equal rights and received an equal share of the juicy fruits of the uncultivated land.” Indeed, in a developed market, the existence of inequality is objectively determined by the fact that the market system is a dispassionate and rigid mechanism that does not know charity and rewards people only according to the final efficiency of their activities. People differ greatly from each other: in their hard work, activity, abilities, education, property ownership, and ability to spend their income productively. This means they cannot work, earn and live the same way.

And it is absolutely normal that the market, through its system of differentiated remuneration, objectively reveals the different capabilities of people, determining “who should be a doctor or a lawyer, who should collect garbage and sweep the streets.” The most ridiculous and harmful thing for humanity, says Ford, is to claim that all people are equal. They are very different, and the one “who creates a lot” must also “bring a lot into his home”, and vice versa. This is what “strict social justice, arising only from human labor,” consists of. There is no place for charity in wages. Everyone gets exactly what they deserve.

The level of social policy of the state is another matter. It, as already noted, is designed to mitigate inequality in people’s incomes in order to prevent excessive social stratification and tension in society. However, too active government intervention in the redistribution and equalization of income significantly reduces the efficiency of production, since rising taxes suppress the interest of wealthy people in economic activity, and the poor, receiving more and more assistance, weaken the desire to find work and vigorous work.

Thus, a contradiction inevitably arises between production efficiency and income equality (Appendix 4). Equality may seem fairer and more tempting, but it undermines the incentive to work. Moreover, excessive equalization of income creates its own injustice, benefiting the less able and less industrious at the expense of others.

Faced with this contradiction, each society must decide for itself two main questions: first, what is better: a larger pie, but divided into unequal portions, that is, an efficient economy, but inequality in society; or everyone equally, but from a smaller pie, that is, equality, but in an inefficient economy. Secondly, how does it see social justice: in the equal distribution of income or in equal opportunities to earn it.

Thus, social policy is a very subtle instrument of government regulation, requiring very careful and flexible application. As for income inequality, it turns out that it is not only inevitable, but even necessary.

1.2 Distribution fairness in a market economy. Justice concepts

Within the framework of positive economic theory, there is simply no answer to the question of what kind of income distribution is fair.

Let us remember that the criterion of Pareto efficiency (when no market participant can improve his position without thereby worsening the position of others) cannot give us a theoretical basis for solving the problem of justice. One of the manifestations of the market fiasco is the impossibility of equitable distribution of income, since the market is a socially neutral mechanism. Pareto efficiency can be defined mathematically, but the concept of justice is a normative judgment, since the word “distribution” refers not only to the distribution of income, but also to the distribution of resources. That is why the issue of fair distribution of income does not leave either politicians or ordinary citizens indifferent: it raises a moral and ethical issue.

It is customary to distinguish between functional and personal distribution of income. Functional distribution means the distribution of national income between the owners of various factors of production (labor, capital, land, entrepreneurship). In this case, we are interested in what share of the “national pie” falls on wages, interest, rental income, and profit. Personal distribution is the distribution of national income among the citizens of a country, regardless of what factors of production they own. In this case, it is analyzed what share of national income (in monetary terms) is received by, for example, the poorest 10% and the richest 10% of families.

So, since Pareto efficiency does not give us any criterion for ranking points lying on the consumer opportunity curve (the achievable utility curve), we cannot say that the distribution at point A is fairer than at point B (Fig. 1).

The figure shows the achievable utility curve in society. We can claim that if there is a movement from point K to point M, then a Pareto improvement is observed. There was an increase in the utility of both y and x. But moving from A to B or vice versa, i.e. sliding along the achievable utility curve, cannot tell us anything about the more preferable (from the point of view of justice) position of each of the indicated points.

What does the concept of “justice” mean? Justice, according to the definition of the famous Macmillan Dictionary of Modern Economic Theory, is honesty and impartiality. If we consider justice in the context of the well-known theory of welfare economics, then a distribution that meets two conditions could be considered fair:

Firstly, it must be equal, that is, none of the subjects of society prefers the commodity set of another person to his own commodity set;

Secondly, it must be Pareto efficient. At the same time, both equal and Pareto efficient distribution can be interpreted as fair. In general, social justice in economic theory is the problem of an acceptable degree of inequality in the distribution of income. And here we must immediately say that economic theorists do not have a single answer to this question. . There are the most famous concepts of justice, or fair distribution of income: egalitarian, utilitarian, Rawlsian and market.

Egalitarian concept considers equal distribution of income fair. The logic of reasoning here is as follows: if it is necessary to divide a certain amount of goods between people who equally deserve it, then an equal distribution would be fair. The problem is what do we mean by “equal merit”? Equal labor contribution to social welfare? Same starting conditions in terms of property ownership? Same mental and physical abilities? Obviously, we will not get a single answer to this question, because we again turn to moral judgments. But here it seems important to emphasize that the egalitarian approach is not as primitive as it is sometimes presented in journalistic articles by glib authors: take and divide everything equally, as suggested by the character of the famous story by Mikhail Bulgakov “Heart of a Dog” Sharikov. After all, we are talking specifically about the equal distribution of benefits among equally deserving people.

Utilitarian concept considers fair the distribution of income in which social welfare, represented by the sum of the individual utilities of all members of society, is maximized. Mathematically, this can be expressed in the form of a formula reflecting the utilitarian function of social welfare:

Where W - social welfare function, and And- individual utility function. In our conditional example, the formula will take the form:

The above formula requires some clarification: firstly, the utilitarian approach assumes the possibility of interpersonal comparison of the individual utility functions of various members of society. Secondly, individual utility functions, according to the utilitarian approach, can be:

A. are the same for all people;

b. different for different members of society. In the latter case
refers to the different ability of people to extract utility from their income (cash or in kind). It is difficult to disagree with the fact that for a rich person the marginal utility of his money income is not at all the same as for a poor person. If you imagine yourself in the place of a millionaire, and then in the place of a humble office worker, then obviously the marginal utility of an additional monetary unit of income will be higher for the last named subject. Then it is assumed that the decrease in utility should be compensated during distribution not by exactly the same, but by a larger increment. This conclusion should not seem strange if we are talking about maximizing the sum of individual utilities.

To illustrate this approach graphically, we use an indifference curve. In the graph (Fig. 2), the social indifference curve means many combinations of utilities that these subjects can extract from their income, presented in cash or in kind. All combinations lying on the social indifference curve are equally satisfactory for society.

If the utilitarian social indifference curve is linear (and its slope is -1, as in case a), then the decrease in utility x will be compensated by exactly the same increase in utility y.

The individual utilities of income are exactly the same. If the social indifference curve is convex to the origin of the coordinate axes (option b), then we see that the decrease in utility for x must be compensated by a more than equal increase in utility y, since only in this way does the total utility of society as a whole remain unchanged. This means that members of society do not have the same individual utility function. Thus, according to the utilitarian approach, society can consider both equal and unequal distribution of income fair, depending on ideas about the nature of the individual utility functions of different members of society. It is easy to see that in case a) the utilitarian concept coincides with the egalitarian one: since all people have exactly the same ability to extract marginal utility from their income, then its equal distribution will be fair.

Rawlsian concept based on the assertion that a distribution that maximizes the welfare of the least affluent member of society will be considered fair. To justify his approach, John Rawls uses a specific mental construct known in economic theory as the “veil of ignorance” (veilofignorance). The “veil of ignorance” means that when forming principles of equitable distribution, one must abstract from the possible consequences for one’s personal well-being. In other words, if it were possible to eliminate everything that is the result of chance or tradition, what kind of society would we choose if we were free to choose whatever we wanted? And what if we made our choice in interaction with other, equally free and equal people? For example, when deciding on rules for equitable distribution of income, you personally must throw a “veil of ignorance” over yourself and not take into account what you will become as a result of adopting such rules: an oil tycoon, a movie star, a postman, a teacher, a homeless person, etc. What would each member of society prefer in this case? Rawls argues that, under the “veil of ignorance,” everyone would prefer to insure against a possible fall into the abyss of poverty, and would therefore favor a distribution of income in which society would be concerned with maximizing the income of the least well-off members of society.

The Rawlsian social welfare function has the following form:

We are talking about solving the “maximin” problem, i.e. maximizing the welfare of a person with a minimum income. In other words, J. Rawls's approach means that the fairness of income distribution depends only on the welfare of the poorest individual. The Rawlsian social indifference curve will have the following form (Fig. 3):

Note that no increase in the welfare of one individual has an impact on the welfare of another. Social welfare, according to Rawls, improves only if the welfare of the least wealthy individual increases.

J. Rawls criticizes the utilitarian concept on several fronts:

First, utilitarianism in its original form provides the simplest and most direct concept of law and justice, that is, the maximization of the good, but does not particularly pay attention to how this sum of utilities is distributed among individuals (how exactly the gains of individual individuals compensate and cover the losses of others).

Secondly, Rawls suggests, the analogy between the individual and society is controversial. It turns out that just as an individual can choose the optimal combination between certain losses and gains (studying a difficult curriculum in order to later achieve a high position; taking part in certain unattractive activities that lead to gain in the future), so a society can exercise Tolerance of certain types of losses (inconvenience for some individuals) if they will lead to an increase in overall gain (greater benefit for more individuals).

But the problem with the utilitarian approach, according to Rawls's critical views, is that it violates the rights of individuals within society, that is, it uses some subjects as a means to achieve the ends of others. A typical example: the existence of the slave system in the southern United States before the Civil War, quite possibly, was in the interests of the nation as a whole (cheap labor, allowing the development of the textile industry, which provided the United States with a leading position in the world market). However, it is difficult to imagine how this could be reconciled with the principles of justice. Or, for example, sacrifices made in the name of future generations: a significant decrease in the standard of living or lengthening of the working day, which falls on the shoulders of the generation living today, certainly leads to an increase in the level of well-being of the future generation. But this, according to Rawls, is hardly fair.

Market concept considers fair distribution of income based on the free play of market prices, the competitive mechanism of supply and demand for factors of production. The distribution of resources and income in market conditions is carried out by an impersonal process. This method was not invented or created by anyone. It is in this sense that we must understand Hayek’s words: “Evolution cannot be fair.” Consequently, according to the thoughts of this outstanding representative of liberalism, “by suppressing the differentiation that arises as a result of the luck of some and the bad luck of others, the process of discovering new opportunities would be almost completely drained.”

So, the last of the considered concepts of justice again makes us think about whether the state should intervene in the process of income redistribution if the benefits in a free market economy go only to those who have “monetary votes”? The governments of industrialized countries did not wait for the end of theoretical debates regarding the equitable distribution of income, especially since in the debate on issues of a normative nature there was no one to make a judgment that has the status of absolute truth. Practice has shown that the existence of vast areas of poverty is fraught with many negative consequences for stable and sustainable economic growth, law and order, moral health, etc. In essence, this is obvious within the framework of common sense and political pragmatism of leaders who do not want social upheaval in society.

1.3 Measuring inequality of income distribution. Causes and factors of inequality

Before turning to the problem of measuring inequality in income distribution, it must be said that disposable income is the income of an economic entity received after paying transfers from the state and paying taxes from its personal income. It is disposable income that gives a more accurate idea of the standard of living of the population than personal income.

Now, with the categories of personal and disposable income in mind, we can turn to specific problems of inequality in income distribution: what is the gap between rich and poor? And is it even possible to measure inequality in income distribution?

One of the most well-known ways to measure this inequality is to construct the Lorenz curve. We are talking about personal rather than functional distribution of income.

If we divide the entire population of the country into 5 parts (quintiles), i.e. 20%, and the total income of society is also 20%, then we can see that the line emanating from the origin of the coordinate axes (bisector) gives us an idea of equal income distribution (Fig. 4).

The Lorenz curve is based on the calculation of cumulative shares (accumulated shares), and accordingly, the construction of a cumulative curve. On the x-axis we plot the first 20% of the population; then, adding the second group, we get 40% of the population, then 60%, etc. On the y-axis we plot the cumulative income values: the first 20%, then 40%, then 60%, etc. If 20% of the population received If it were 20% of total personal income, 40% of the population - 40% of income, etc., then we would build just a bisector, called the line of absolute equality. But in reality the distribution is never absolutely equal. For example, the first 20% of the population receives 5% of income, 40% of the population - 15% of income, 60% of the population - 35% of income, 80% of the population - 60% of income, and finally, 100% of the population - 100% of all income of society. In accordance with these values, we construct a Lorentz curve, which deviates from the line of absolute equality. The Lorenz curve (OABCDE curve in our graph) will be more concave with respect to the bisector if the income distribution is more uneven. In Fig. 4 we can also see the line of absolute inequality running at right angles (OFE). The solid line of the Lorenz curve shows the distribution of personal income (before taxes and without transfers). But after paying taxes and receiving transfers, we can construct a new Lorenz curve (dashed line), that is, a curve for disposable income. It is less concave, since as a result of redistribution processes, the initial inequality in income levels has decreased. Obviously, the more the Lorenz curve deviates from the bisector, the stronger the inequality in income distribution, and the more active the state’s social policy to equalize income, the less concave this curve is. Depending on the specific social programs and taxation systems in a particular country, the difference between the Lorenz curves constructed for personal and disposable income will depend. In Fig. Figure 5 shows various Lorenz curves for Russia in 1997, reflecting the distribution of income from property, business income, income from labor (wages), etc.

As noted earlier, the Lorenz curve, which reflects the distribution of income taking into account transfer payments, comes closest to the line of absolute equality, and the furthest from it is the curve demonstrating the distribution of income from property.

Another indicator used in economics to determine the degree of income differentiation is the Gini coefficient (G), or income concentration index . This coefficient is closely related to the Lorenz curve. In Fig. 1.4 we can calculate it as the ratio of the area of the figure located between the line of absolute equality and the Lorentz curve (denoted by the letter T) to the area of the triangle OFE , formed between the lines of absolute equality and absolute inequality:

where the value of G varies from zero to one, i.e.

It should be noted that the Gini coefficient can vary for different types of income and their subjects. The index can be calculated based on wages, income from business activities, GDP (GNP) per capita, gross household income, etc.

But why does income inequality exist? Various economists name many reasons and factors, but some of the most important are:

Firstly, from birth people are endowed with various abilities, both mental and physical. All other things being equal (this premise must always be kept in mind), a person endowed with exceptional physical strength has a greater chance of becoming a famous and highly paid athlete.

Secondly, differences in ownership of property, especially inherited property. People cannot choose which family they will be born into - hereditary millionaires or ordinary workers. Consequently, one of the types of income stream, i.e. income from property, will differ significantly among the named entities.

Thirdly, differences in educational level. This reason itself largely depends on the first two mentioned. A child born into a rich family has a greater chance of receiving an excellent education and, accordingly, a profession that brings high income than a child in a poor large family.

Fourth, even with equal opportunities and the same starting levels of education, greater income will be received by individuals who are sometimes called “workaholics.” These people are ready to take work home, stay at the workplace for long periods of time to resolve one or another professional problem, and ignore their poor health in order to achieve good results in their work.

Fifthly, there is a group of reasons that are simply associated with luck, chance, unexpected gain, etc. Under conditions of uncertainty characteristic of a market economy, this group of reasons can explain many cases of inequality in income distribution.

Thus, at least for the above reasons, equality of economic opportunity is not always observed. Poor and rich still exist even in the most prosperous highly developed countries.

. Income distribution and the problem of justice in the Russian economy

A country in which everyone's income slowly rises can be very happy; A country in which income grows very quickly, but at the same time income inequality increases, is heading towards its destruction.

L. Stoleru

Population incomes and their distribution are not only of social importance - as components of the standard of living, but also as factors determining life expectancy itself. Low income levels, and, as a consequence, low purchasing power of the bulk of the population, are one of the main reasons for the stagnation of the Russian economy.

2.1 Level of income and its distribution in the period 1992-2004.

Over the years of market reforms, real incomes of the population have decreased by more than half, and almost all indicators of the level and quality of life of the Russian population have worsened. More than a third of Russians currently have incomes below the subsistence level, and another 50% of the population can barely make ends meet.

The first wave of this decline occurred in 1992-1995 and was associated with the liberalization of prices by the government of E. Gaidar, as well as with high inflation, which devalued the savings of citizens. The second blow to living standards was dealt by the 1998 financial crisis, after which even the economic recovery that began in 1999 did not make it possible to restore the pre-crisis level of real incomes of the population. By the beginning of 2001, real disposable cash income remained at the level of 77% of 1997 (Appendix 5).

It is necessary to take into account that by the beginning of economic reforms in Russia, a relatively low standard of living of the population had developed not only in comparison with highly developed Western countries, but also with individual Eastern European countries.

During the Soviet period, under the conditions of the administrative system of economic management, the main direction of the state's social policy was to maintain a relatively low, but fairly stable standard of living for the vast majority of the population. This was achieved, on the one hand, by strict rationing of wages and other types of income of the population, and, on the other hand, by “freezing” prices for basic types of consumer goods and paid services. As is known, a major role in the implementation of this policy was played by public consumption funds (PCF), which occupied more than 30% of the total income of the population and grew at a faster pace compared to wages. At the same time, about 75% of the total value of the general physical training program was formed and spent centrally, and the remaining 25% - at the expense of enterprises on the basis of strict directive standards. The system of distribution relations that emerged on this basis was essentially built on the denial of the commodity form of assessment of labor power and was aimed at reducing the differentiation of workers' incomes.

The egalitarian approach to the distribution and provision of social guarantees, which did not create adequate incentives for highly productive labor and efficient accumulation, had exhausted itself by the 1980s. The need to eliminate the “leveling system” was one of the most important reasons for the start of perestroika in the USSR. However, during the implementation of market reforms in the USSR and Russia, the role of the state in generating incomes of the population and regulating wages decreased significantly; as noted above, there was a significant drop in the standard of living of the bulk of the country’s population.

In the 90s, extremely low income levels of the population, non-payment of wages, pensions, benefits, turned into a systemic problem of the socio-economic development of Russia. Of course, without a radical improvement in the economic situation and a transition to economic growth, it is impossible to achieve significant positive results in improving living standards. However, there is no doubt that the low level of income of the population is largely due to the lack of an active state income and employment policy.

The practice of social development shows that increasing the level and quality of life is not only the result of economic growth, but also its condition. Modern production requires both fundamentally new equipment and technologies, as well as highly qualified workers, owners of their intellectual capital, who form the basis of the middle class. Such people have a much more complex structure of material, spiritual and social needs; they spend more money on restoring vital energy, education and vocational training. Their level and quality of life must be higher than simply ensuring survival.

The Russian reality of the 90s convincingly demonstrates that the economy of the “cheap worker”, satisfying his needs at a minimum level, has a depressing effect not only on the worker, but also on the possibilities for the development of the economy as a whole.

In conditions of revival of economic activity in the country as a whole in 2000, the real disposable cash income of the population amounted to 110%, and real wages - 120% of the 1999 level. However, as noted above, this increase did not allow us to reach the pre-crisis level of 1997. Despite the fact that real disposable income of the population in 2001 is projected to grow by 5%, it will reach only 80% of the 1997 level.

According to data published by the Federal State Statistics Service, the cash income of Russians in 2004 amounted to 6,296 rubles on average per capita per month, which is 22% higher than in 2003. In March 2005, they rose to 7,327 rubles (26.1% more than in March last year, and in general for the first quarter of 2005 - by 16.1%, compared to the same period in 2004). The monetary income of the population grew not only in nominal, but also in real terms (adjusted to the consumer price index for the corresponding period).

Real disposable cash income - income minus mandatory payments and contributions in real terms - increased in 2004 by 7.8% compared to 2003 and exceeded the level of all previous years since 1992. In January-March 2005, real disposable cash income was 3.1% higher than in the same period of the previous year. But in general, over the past year there has been a trend towards a slowdown in the growth rate of real disposable money (growth in 2003 compared to 2002 was 14.9%, and in the first quarter of 2004 compared to the same period in 2003 - by 12.0%).

Cash income of the population of Russia is formed from wages paid to employees, social transfers (pensions, benefits, scholarships, insurance compensation and other payments), income of persons engaged in entrepreneurial activities, income from property in the form of interest on deposits, securities, dividends and other income. Wages remain the main type of monetary income of the population, although its role decreased noticeably in the 90s - if previously it accounted for more than 4/5 of total monetary income, now it is less than 2/3 (Appendix 7). The role of social transfers remained almost unchanged, after some strengthening in 2001 - in 2004 they provided 13.8% of total cash income. Entrepreneurial income began to play almost the same importance (11.8%). The importance of income from property began to increase again (9.2% of total cash income in 2004 versus 7.8% in 2003 and 4.8% in 2002).

Wages remain the main source of income for approximately 62 million employed people and their dependent family members. Various types of pensions form the income of 38 million pensioners registered with social protection authorities. Recipients of other types of cash income are significantly smaller groups of the population. The number of people receiving entrepreneurial income does not exceed 5 million people (according to sample population surveys on employment issues, approximately 0.8 million people are employers, 4.1 million people are self-employed).

According to clearly underestimated official data for 2003, the ratio of incomes of the richest 10% of the population and the poorest 10% (decile coefficient) was 14:1; later differentiation increased. Our calculations also take into account the distribution of hidden income, which gives an even more differentiated income ratio of 38:1, which indicates a higher, increasing differentiation. This growing inequality does not solve the problem of poverty.

In the older decile, the variation in income is high (although the very rich remain “outside” of state statistics). The richest 1% of the Russian population receives 35% of the total national income.

In Russia, two social worlds have emerged - two classes, completely different in level and quality of life. Under these conditions, economic growth by itself will not ensure poverty, and social inequality will only increase. This is a consequence of the current distribution system.

Trends in changes in the distribution of income between population groups are clearly visible in the diagram (Appendix 8). In 2000-2002 half of the population had an average per capita monthly income of up to 3000 rubles, and in 2003-2004. up to 5000 rub. All curves on the graph are “two-peaked,” which is very different from ordinary normal distribution curves and indicates the heterogeneity of the population under consideration.

2.2 Population income ratio 2005 by 2006

In November 2006 compared to the corresponding period in 2005. The monetary income of the population increased by 20% and reached 1,456.7 billion rubles. Specific cash income amounted to 10,228 rubles, which is 1.6% higher than the previous October.

Data on the dynamics of real and disposable income of the population for the period of the beginning of 2005. were subjected to some adjustments by Rosstat. As a result, last year's level of this indicator rose slightly, and its increase over 5005 was increased from 9.3% to 11.1%. At the same time, the current growth in 2006 began to look moderate, but thanks to the increased starting point, the level of real cash income in 2006. remained approximately the same as before the adjustment. The increase in November 2006, according to the initial estimate of Rosstat, was only 0.8% compared to October. For January-November 2006 This increase is relative to the same period in 2005. amounted to 10.1%, while the value of such an increase in January-September was estimated at 11.4%.

In December, the volume of real cash income increased by 40%, which is a traditional seasonal increase. In January 2007 A sharp seasonal decline is expected, followed by a 19% recovery in February. This rise will continue in March, with real cash income forecast to rise by another 7%

The average accrued salary in November 2006 was, according to preliminary data, 11,267 rubles. and compared to the same period of the previous year increased by 25%, compared to October 2006 - by 1.4%.

The highest nominal wages were at the end of October 2006 in the financial sector and mining - 23,672 rubles. and 22817 rubles, respectively. The lowest remains in agriculture, 5045 rubles. The level of average accrued wages for healthcare workers and the provision of social services amounted to 79% compared to its level in manufacturing industries, and for educational workers - 69% (in October 2005 - 71% and 65%, respectively). Real wages in November 2006 increased by 1.4% compared to the previous month, which corresponds to an increase of 1% excluding the influence of seasonality. This increase turned out to maintain the previous intensity of the rise of this indicator according to the trend after the rather weak October value. In other words, there are signs of some slowdown in its current rise since the beginning of the fourth quarter. However, due to the relatively low base of comparison, this did not prevent the process of increasing growth compared to the level of the corresponding period in 2005. The growth for January-November was 13.3% versus 13.2% for January-October and 12.3% for the first half of the year . In the near future, the positive trend in the dynamics of real wages is expected to strengthen, which allows us to estimate its annual growth at 13.4%, and the increase for the first quarter of 2007 compared to the same period in 2006, when there was a noticeable weakening of the current growth, will be approximately 16%.

In December, real wages, according to our estimates, increased by 25%. In January 2007, a rather deep decline of 21% is expected, and in February an increase of 1%. In March, real wages are forecast to increase by another 7%.

In November 2006, the average amount of assigned monthly pensions, according to preliminary data, amounted to 2839 rubles. and increased by 11.7% compared to the same period in 2005. Compared to the previous October, the growth was insignificant - 0.7%. The real size of assigned pensions in November 2006 fell by 0.5% relative to the previous October. Compared to the same period in 2005, the growth was 2.4%. The average amount of assigned monthly pensions relative to the average amount of accrued wages was 25.2% in November 2006 versus 28.5% in November 2005.

2.2.1 Living wage in the regions of the Russian Federation

The subsistence minimum is the required minimum cash income per person, equal in value to the cost of the minimum consumer basket. Such a basket represents a minimum set of food products, goods and services necessary to ensure human life in physical and monetary terms. It consists of a food basket and a fixed share of expenses for non-food products and paid services.

The cost of living in the Penza region in the 1st quarter of 2007

Cash income of the population in March 2007 amounted to 8506.9 million rubles, which is 24.1% more than in March 2006. In March 2007, cash income per capita was 6093.8 rubles. and increased compared to March 2006. by 25.1% (by 1223.8 rubles). Of the total cash income, the population spent 68.3% on the purchase of goods and services, payment of mandatory payments and contributions - 7.4%, purchase of currency - 1.6%.

Real disposable cash income (income minus mandatory payments, adjusted for the consumer price index) in March 2007. compared to March 2006 increased by 14.2%.

Accrued average wages of workers in enterprises and organizations of the region in February 2007. amounted to 7085.5 rubles. and increased compared to February 2006. by 31.0%.

Real wages in February 2007 increased compared to the corresponding period in 2006. by 19.0%.

Wages arrears as of April 1, 2007 amounted to 31.9 million rubles. and decreased compared to April 1, 2006. by 26.0 million rubles, or by 45%

The cost of living in Bryansk for II quarter 2006

In accordance with Federal Law No. 134-FZ dated October 24, 1997 “On the cost of living in the Russian Federation”, resolution of the city administration (mayor’s office) No. 1113 dated August 3, 2001 “On the cost of living in the city of Bryansk” and according to the calculation provided by the committee for economy of the Bryansk city administration for the II quarter of 2006 in the city of Bryansk, the cost of living per capita was 2873 rubles, for the working population - 3075 rubles, for pensioners - 2351 rubles, for children - 2856 rubles, and for the IV quarter of the same year it was 2892 rubles per capita, 3103 for the working population, 2354 for pensioners, 2864 for children.

The cost of living in Moscow

Quarter	The cost of living, rub.
	per capita	for able-bodied population		For pensioners		For children
2006
IV	5121	5789		3532		4394
III	5124	5795		3533		4381
II	5159	5829		3562		4430
I	5084	5752		3497		4365
2005
IV	4171,80	4814,41		2851,52		3766,06
III	4186,84	4828,71		2866,51		3784,07
II	4215,55	4855,63		2890,29		3833,22
I	4101,43	4733,14			2793,36	3718,25
2004
IV	3703,57	4265,24			2531,00	3377,59
III	3632,29	4190,13			2478,17	3292,50
II	3611,45	4165,30			2459,67	3283,24
I	3374,41	3809,30			2427,08	3182,71
2003
IV	3208,02		3634,60		2282,98	3013,47
III	3199,08		3624,75		2281,25	2996,89
II	3209,01		3629,49		2287,73	3031,76
I	3044,32		3457,09		2139,71	2870,62
2002
IV	2918,55		3325,00	2040,99		2735,00
III	2664,29		2964,31	1980,52		2581,68
II	2642,63		2937,71	1959,74		2576,22
I	2565,72		2852,99	1892,82		2512,69
2001
IV	2385,26		2661,72	1740,69		2329,84
III	2294,70		2550,24	1697,04		2246,29
II	2251,02		2493,02	1675,26		2219,13
I	2066,60		2298,74	1515,07		2037,35

The cost of living in the Orenburg region and its ratio to the amount of pensions for I quarter 2007.

The decree of the government of the Orenburg region established the cost of living per capita at 2,700 rubles, for pensioners in the Orenburg region for the first quarter of 2007 in the amount of 2,587 rubles.

Today, the average pension in the Orenburg region exceeds the cost of living of a pensioner and is 2822.32 rubles; after the April indexation, the increase was 219.66 rubles. The average pension size of participants in the Great Patriotic War and recipients of two pensions increased by 560.45 rubles and amounted to 7554.31 rubles. The size of the state pension for disabled children and people with disabilities since childhood of the second and third degree increased by 178.55 rubles and amounted to 2559.26 rubles.

Today in the Orenburg region, approximately 28.6% of the population has incomes below the subsistence level.

The cost of living in St. Petersburg for II quarter 2004

The resolution on determining the cost of living per capita and for the main socio-demographic groups of the population in St. Petersburg for the second quarter of 2004 was adopted at a meeting of the city government.

The calculation of the cost of living was carried out by the Committee on Labor and Social Protection of the Population. The calculations used data from the State Statistics Committee for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region on average retail prices for goods and services. The cost of living for the second quarter of 2004 was: per capita - 2777 rubles. 40 kopecks; for the working population - 3176 rubles. 80 kopecks; for pensioners - 1990 rubles. 60 kopecks; for children - 2489 rub. 60 kopecks

Gini coefficient

The Gini coefficient is calculated based on the Lorenz curve method as the ratio of the areas of the region M and the triangle OeF5. Its value ranges from 0 to 1. The higher the coefficient value, the greater the degree of inequality.

To calculate the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient for a country, a national system of recording the income of all families is needed. In Russia, such a system is just being created, so family incomes are still assessed on the basis of a selective analysis of family budgets.

Rice. 27.2. Lorenz curves for Russia in 1994 and 1998

Distribution of the total cash income of the population of the Russian Federation in 1993 and 1998.

Russian statistical yearbook. Stat. Sat./Goskomstat of Russia.- M.: 1999.- p. 155.

Wealth stratification of the population, borders and poverty levels

The cost of living in the Russian Federation as a whole for IV quarter 2004

The cost of living in the Russian Federation as a whole in the fourth quarter of 2004. amounted to 2 thousand 451 rubles. per month per person, which is 2.3% more than the cost of living in the third quarter of 2004. The cost of the consumer basket amounted to 2 thousand 308 rubles. (minimum set of food products - 1 thousand 042 rubles, non-food products - 507 rubles, services - 759 rubles), expenses for mandatory payments and fees - 143 rubles.

An increase in the cost of living compared to the fourth quarter of 2003, when the value of this indicator reached 2 thousand 143 rubles. per month per person amounted to 14.3%. In the fourth quarter of 2004 compared to the third quarter of 2004 the increase in the cost of food products in the consumer basket amounted to 2.1%, non-food products - 2.6%, services - 2.3%. In the first quarter of 2004 the cost of living was 2 thousand 293 rubles. per month, in the second quarter - 2 thousand 363 rubles, in the third quarter - 2 thousand 396 rubles.

The cost of living for the working population in the fourth quarter of 2004. amounted to 2 thousand 690 rubles. per month per person (cost of the consumer basket - 2 thousand 440 rubles, expenses for mandatory payments and fees - 250 rubles), pensioners - 1 thousand 849 rubles, children - 2 thousand 394 rubles.

According to Rosstat, the average per capita cash income of the population in the fourth quarter of 2004. amounted to 7 thousand 531 rubles. per month, which is 3 times the subsistence level for the entire population of the Russian Federation.

The average monthly nominal accrued wages per employee amounted to in the fourth quarter of 2004. 7 thousand 582 rubles, which is 2.8 times higher than the subsistence level for the working population. The average amount of assigned pensions was 2 thousand 026 rubles, which is 9.5% higher than the cost of living for pensioners.

As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2004. The minimum wage was 600 rubles. (22.3% of the subsistence level for the working population), monthly allowance for each child under 16 years of age - 70 rubles. (2.9% of the cost of living for a child), the minimum amount of scholarships for students of state and municipal universities is 400 rubles. (14.9% of the cost of living for the working population).

The number of people in Russia with incomes below the subsistence level as of the end of 2004. decreased by 10.4% compared to the data at the end of 2003, amounting to 20.8 million people, or 14.6% of the total population of Russia.

Calculations were carried out using the results of a federal state statistical survey of household budgets, conducted quarterly by state statistics bodies in all constituent entities of the Russian Federation, covering 49.2 thousand households.

Minimum wage (minimum wage)

Minimum wage from December 1, 2008 will be 3 thousand rubles. This was announced by Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, speaking at a joint meeting of the Supreme Council and the General Council of the United Russia party.

By 2011 The minimum wage level is planned to be increased to the subsistence level, which is projected to be 5 thousand 238 rubles. This, according to the minister, will require additional resources, and in the budget for 2008-2010. additional funds have been reserved in the amount of: RUB 16 billion. - in 2008, 40 billion rubles. - in 2009 and 53 billion rubles. - in 2010 These funds will be transferred to those departments that will develop and approve sectoral wage systems.

The subsistence level established in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in accordance with the law “On the subsistence level in the Russian Federation” for the fourth quarter of 2006

All population	including by socio-demographic groups
All population	able-bodied population	pensioners	children
*Russian Federation*	*...*	*...*	*...*	*...*
Central federal district
Belgorod region	2901	3131	2286	2905
Bryansk region	2873	3075	2351	2856
Vladimir region	3222	3476	2685	3038
Voronezh region	2813	3091	2195	2772
Ivanovo region	3090	3348	2469	3061
Kaluga region	3197	3457	2575	3115
Kostroma region	2952	3199	2364	2850
Kursk region	2849	3120	2329	2618
Lipetsk region	2721	2979	2053	2725
Moscow region	3830	4267	2831	3605
Oryol region	2629	2866	2226	2459
Ryazan region	2966	3209	2426	2912
Smolensk region	3187	3428	2557	3167
Tambov region	2736	2973	2257	2619
Tver region	3029	3347	2361	2968
Tula region	2795	3114	2173	2848
Yaroslavl region	2995	3337	2222	2943
Moscow	5124	5795	3533	4381
Northwestern federal district
Rep. Karelia	3699	4081	2859	3354
Rep. Komi	4525	4868	3500	4333
Arkhangelsk region	4060	4428	3200	3814
Vologda region	3450	3757	2685	3250
Kaliningrad region	3696	3985	2921	3474
Leningrad region	3321	3477	2458	3236
Murmansk region	5333	5518	4452	5284
Novgorod region	3225	3574	2463	3215
Pskov region	2951	3233	2340	2791
St. Petersburg	3544	4045	2611	3102
Nenets Aut. district	5764	6288	4294	5606
Southern federal district
Rep. Adygea	2962	3209	2420	2908
Rep. Dagestan	2416	2567	1846	2305
Rep. Ingushetia	2766	3016	2177	2523
Kabardino-Balkarian Republic	2558	2748	1943	2460
Rep. Kalmykia	2664	2884	2101	2577
Karachay-Cherkess Republic	2709	2935	2194	2573
Rep. North Ossetia-Alania	2579	2781	2095	2466
Chechen Republic	3012	3333	2294	2769
Krasnodar region	3278	3522	2712	3163
Stavropol region	3050	3312	2374	2914
Astrakhan region	2883	3152	2180	2722
Volgograd region	2762	3003	2173	2768
Rostov region	3086	3341	2419	3047
Privolzhsky federal district
Rep. Bashkortostan	2973	3174	2448	2902
Rep. Mari El	2789	2983	2180	2710
Rep. Mordovia	2816	3072	2162	2716
Rep. Tatarstan	2695	2966	1946	2674
Udmurt Republic	2947	3147	2362	2809
Chuvash Republic	2712	2905	2185	2648
Perm region	3571	3815	2848	3474
Kirov region	3066	3365	2268	3080
Nizhny Novgorod region	3255	3523	2596	3194
Orenburg region	2734	2978	2057	2708
Penza region	2999	3251	2426	2874
Samara region	3727	4117	3009	3521
Saratov region	2919	3188	2200	2930
Ulyanovsk region	2936	3161	2338	2851
Ural federal district
Kurgan region	2977	3250	2295	2858
Sverdlovsk region	3324	3591	2632	3162
Tyumen region	3555	3774	2680	3530
Chelyabinsk region	2939	3205	2154	2961
Khanty-Mansiysk auto. district - Ugra	5274	5556	4276	4997
Yamalo-Nenets Aut. district	5940	6169	4399	5556
Siberian federal district
Rep. Altai	3841	4109	3013	3613
Rep. Buryatia	3508	3791	2690	3339
Rep. Tyva	3321	3547	2533	3237
Rep. Khakassia	3275	3494	2504	3342
Altai region	3049	3262	2445	2975
Krasnoyarsk region	3716	4039	2657	3613
Irkutsk region	3373	3608	2635	3247
Kemerovo region	2933	3174	2104	2972
Novosibirsk region	3674	3960	2916	3620
Omsk region	3375	3595	2786	3246
Tomsk region	3572	3829	2712	3423
Chita region	3588	3834	2767	3432
Aginsky Buryat auto. district	3459	3829	2709	3286
Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) auto. district	7091	7500	5235	6646
Ust-Ordynsky Buryat Autonomous District. district 3)	3138	3346	2457	3130
Evenki auto. district	6588	6890	5509	6154
Far Eastern federal district
Rep. Sakha (Yakutia)	5403	5848	4054	5099
Primorsky Krai	4423	4769	3389	4242
Khabarovsk region	4854	5212	3660	4657
Amur region	4353	4671	3282	4203
Kamchatka region	6688	7340	5038	6420
Magadan region	5329	5639	3818	5215
Sakhalin region	5974	6315	4922	5596
Jewish auto. region	3894	4252	3128	3639
Koryak auto. district	7856	8209	6756	7864
Chukotka Autonomous Republic district	8379	8655	6518	8312

The population with monetary incomes below the subsistence level established for the Russian Federation as a whole (low-income population) amounted to 31.2 million people (21.9% of the total population).