In the article conditions and development of Russian pension system in long-term prospect is analyzed. The author reveals the reasons of the Pension fund deficit and argues that tariff policy imbalance is the basic cause, as well as nonparticipation of a considerable part of able-bodied population in payments in the Pension fund, and the fact that a lot of persons receive labour pension ahead of schedule. Possible measures aimed at reaching financial stability of the pension system are offered in the article.
The article aims to refine the understanding of the importance of industries as consumers and producers of intermediate products (compared with the results based on the data from World Input-Output Tables for Russia) and calculate the effect of trade integration on production and some other economic indicators by economic activities relying on the input-output analysis for the case of Russian integration into the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). We apply the new official input-output tables published in March, 2017. We show that the structure of the gains from economic integration changes while one switches from the analysis in terms of commodity trade growth to the analysis in terms of value added: the gains reduce for chemicals and machinery (though these industries are still in the top) and increase for services and intermediate products (especially mining).
This study analyzes wage differentials between Russian regions, focusing on two long-term factors shaping them: different regional economic structures and different living conditions. To examine the role of these factors we use microdata from the Rosstat’s enterprise sample surveys conducted in 2005—2015, combined with data from the aggregated regional-level statistics. By estimating mincer-type wage equations extended with regional-level variables we show that regional differences in employment composition explain no more than a third of the total interregional variation in nominal wages. Wage compensations for relatively worse living conditions (higher price levels, colder winter, and worse environmental conditions) account for about a half of the remaining variation. Both factors together explain about 60% of the total variation in nominal wages among Russia’s regions. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the nature of interregional wage differentials in Russia and have important implications.
The article is devoted to the problems of relationship between the public expenditures and the economic growth and methodical and practical problems of estimating expenditures efficiency. Authors note that “productive expenditures” (expenditures on human capital, social and economic infrastructure, research and development) have strong influence on the economic growth. The comparative study of the effectiveness and efficiency of the public expenditures was conducted, including the productive expenditures (education and healthcare), for Russia and the sample of countries close to Russia by their economic development level. The aggregated indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency, simple econometric models, DEA method, and based on them effectiveness and efficiency rankings are used as measuring instruments in the study.
According to the approach applied in the study, the rankings show relatively poor results for Russia in macroeconomic function performance of the public sector, in comparison to the other countries of the sample, but it is worth to notice that the aggregated estimates are influenced by the selection of time period. Russia shows high results in education public expenditures efficiency and relatively poor results in healthcare public expenditures efficiency. Also, the productive expenditures level is low in Russia compared to the other countries close to Russia by the economic development level and OECD countries. This can limit the economic growth in the mid-term and long-term prospects.
Using level accounting methodology this article examines sources of per capita GDP and labor productivity differences between Russia and developed and developing countries. Analysis concentrates on the assessment of role of the following determinants in per capita GDP gap: per hour labor productivity, number of hours worked per worker and labor-population ratio. It is shown that labor productivity difference is the main reason of Russia`s lagging behind. Factors of Russia`s low labor productivity are then estimated. It is found that 33-39% of 2.5-5-times labor productivity gap (estimated for non-oil sector) between Russia and developed countries (US, Canada, Germany, Norway) is explained by lower capital-to-labor ratio and the latter 58-65% of gap is due to lower technological level (multifactor productivity). Human capital level in Russia is almost the same as in developed countries, so it explains only 2-4% of labor productivity gap.