Неформальная занятость в России: что говорят альтернативные определения?
According to the existing literature, informality rates for Russia vary in a wide range from slightly more than 5 to nearly 30 percent. The question arises: what are causes and consequences of so huge variation? Using RMLS data for 2009 the paper investigates the degree of congruence between several alternative definitions of the informal employment in the context of Russian labor market. Analysis shows that depending on empirical definitions informality rates considerably differ – from 11 to 24 percent. With different approaches not only scale of the informal employment but also its socio-demographic profile radically changes. Furthermore, the econometric analysis reveals that the conditional impact of particular factors on the risk of informality varies considerably from one definition to another. This suggests that that estimates of the informal employment for Russia could hardly be regarded as methodologically robust.
Having unique data we investigate informal employment and “envelope payments” as additional costs of worker displacement in the Russian labor market. In particular we analyze whether displaced workers experience
more involuntary informal employment than their non-displaced counterparts. Our main results confirm
our contention that displacement entraps some of the workers in involuntary informal employment. Those who quit, in turn, experience voluntary informality for the most part, but there seems a minority of quitting workers who end up in involuntary informal jobs. This scenario does not fall on all the workers who separate but predominantly on workers with low human capital. Being able to distinguish between involuntary and voluntary informal employment our study contributes to the debate in the informality literature on the issue of segmented versus integrated labor markets. We also pursue the issue of informality persistence and find that informal employment is indeed persistent as some workers churn from one informal job to the next. Job separations in general and not displacement events per se are associated with larger “envelope payments”.
Using RLMS-HSE data set we analyze labor flows in the Russian labor market for 2000-2012. We document the high mobility rate and the transitive role played by non-participation. Division of all employed into three large groups (budgetary workers, workers in the corporate market sector, and employed in the non-corporate or informal sector) suggests that budgetary workers are low mobile compared to others, and informal workers and economically inactive individuals have higher probabilities to become unemployed than those who work formally. The paper exploits a few methodological approaches. First, we build transition matrices allowing estimate transition probabilities. Second, the Shorrocks indexes estimate intensity of mobility. Third, the dynamic multinomial logit model explores individual determinants of inter-status transitions and structural dependence from the previous labor market states. Fourth, we decompose the change in unemployment rate as the combination of incoming and outcoming flows. This procedure suggests that the decline in unemployment is explained by decrease in incoming flows while the outflows remain largely stable. Observed intensity and direction of flows fit the institutional configuration of the Russian labor market model.
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.