?
Ближайшая периферия бедности: особенности и динамика
The article analyses the immediate periphery of the poor in Russia – Russians with incomes 1 to 1.5 subsistence levels. The article raises three questions: 1) what is the size and characteristics of this group, 2) how has it changed over the past 11 years (and whether the group has retained the character of an ‘intermediate’ zone, significantly different from both the poor and the rest of the population), and 3) whether members of this group need support from the state (given that the size of their incomes does not allow them to qualify for a significant part of state assistance). In order to answer these questions, the article compares them with higher-income Russians and with the poor. The analysis is based on the data of all-Russian representative surveys of the Institute of sociology of the russian Academy of sciences (‘Poverty and the Poor in Modern Russia’, April 2013) and the Institute of Sociology of the Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences (‘Dynamics of Social Transformation of Modern Russia in Socio-Economic, Political, Socio-Cultural and Ethno-Religious Context’, June 2023, April 2024). The study showed that the representatives of immediate periphery of the poor have become very similar to the poor in terms of socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics, as well as subjective perception of life, but the convergence of groups was mainly due to accelerated changes in the group of the poor. As a result, these processes led to the loss of the unique specificity of this group as an intermediate zone, which was characteristic of this group in the 2000s. In 2024 representatives of this group were comparable to the poor in terms of the nature of everyday problems and in terms of what they were able to achieve in life, and what they no longer hope to achieve (except for the fact that there was no marginalising subgroup in their ranks). As a consequence, they are almost as likely to declare their need for state support, even though they are less likely to identify themselves as permanently needy and more likely to feel responsible for their lives. In this regard, we conclude that this group requires attention from the state, and the vector taken to expand social programmes aimed at the group of Russians with incomes less than 1.5 Subsistense level (instead of 1 SL) meets the demands of Russians and is timely.