2006年-世界发展银行全球_Reducing_Poverty_through_Growth_and_Social_Policy_Reform_in_Russia_314页_2mb

Summary of Reducing Poverty through Growth and Social Policy Reform in Russia

Core Content

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of poverty in the Russian Federation since 1997, focusing on both economic growth and social policy reform as key tools for poverty reduction. It was prepared by a World Bank multi-sector team in collaboration with the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the Russian government, drawing on extensive data from the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) and the Household Budget Survey (HBS). The report outlines the dynamics of poverty, its regional distribution, and the impact of economic recovery and policy changes on poverty levels.

Main Views and Key Information

Part I: The Nature of Poverty in Russia

• Methodology for Measuring Poverty: The report emphasizes the importance of using consumption-based measures rather than income-based ones. It also discusses the challenges in estimating durable goods' use value and highlights the need for more accurate data collection.
• Profile of the Poor: The poor are predominantly found in rural areas, among households with multiple children, and in small urban communities. Children are the most vulnerable group, and those with cumulative vulnerabilities face the highest risk of poverty.
• Regional Dimension of Poverty: Poverty is unevenly distributed across regions. Rural areas have higher poverty incidence, and regional inequality is closely linked to poverty levels. Regions with lower per capita GRP and consumption have higher poverty rates.

Part II: Economic Recovery and Poverty Reduction

• Post-1998 Economic Recovery: After the 1998 financial crisis, Russia experienced a broad-based economic rebound, which significantly reduced poverty. Real GDP growth was rapid, and the recovery was stronger than in many other post-crisis countries.
• Impact on Labor Earnings: The recovery led to increased labor demand, higher wages, reduced unemployment, and longer working hours. The government's improved fiscal position, driven by higher oil revenues, enabled it to reduce wage arrears and increase social spending.
• Poverty, Growth, and Inequality: Economic growth had a pro-poor impact during 1999–2002, reducing poverty from 41.5% to 19.6%. However, increased inequality weakened the poverty reduction effect. The gap between skilled and unskilled labor widened, and the poor faced higher costs for essential services.
• WTO Accession: The accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) is expected to have a positive impact on growth and poverty, though the exact effects depend on various factors such as trade liberalization and policy adjustments.

Part III: Reforming Sectoral Policies for Poverty Alleviation

• Social Transfers: The report highlights the inefficiency of current social transfer programs, particularly in terms of targeting. Pensions and social benefits are significant but regressive. There is a need to improve targeting methods to ensure that the poor benefit more from social protection.
• Housing and Utilities: Poor households spend a larger share of their income on housing and utilities, making these services critical for poverty alleviation. Subsidies for housing and utilities are regressive and should be reformed to better support the poor.
• Education: The poor have lower education attainment and access to non-compulsory education. Education spending as a percentage of GDP is lower in Russia than in other countries. Improving access and quality of education is essential for reducing poverty.
• Health Care: The poor face significant barriers to accessing health care, including lack of specialists and affordability issues. Public health spending declined during the 1990s, and out-of-pocket payments increased, worsening health outcomes for the poor. Reforming health care to make it more accessible and affordable is necessary.

Part IV: Poverty Monitoring

• Household Budget Survey: The report recommends using the Household Budget Survey for monitoring poverty, as it provides detailed micro data on household consumption and expenditures. It suggests improvements in data collection, sampling, and processing to enhance poverty monitoring.

Key Recommendations

1. Growth is essential for poverty reduction:

   • Sustained economic growth is necessary to reduce poverty, with a target of at least 5% annual per capita consumption growth to halve poverty by 2007.
   • A 3% growth rate would only reduce poverty by a third.

2. Improve the targeting of social transfers:

   • Current social transfer programs are not well-targeted, and reforms are needed to ensure that the poor receive more benefits.

3. Reform housing and utility services:

   • Subsidies should be restructured to be more effective and less regressive. Poor households spend a larger share of their income on these services, making them a critical area for reform.

4. Enhance access to quality education:

   • Education is a key factor in reducing poverty. Improving access and quality, especially for the poor, is essential.

5. Reorganize health care delivery:

   • Health care reform should focus on making services more accessible and affordable. Public spending on health care has declined, and out-of-pocket payments have increased, exacerbating health inequalities.

6. Strengthen poverty monitoring:

   • The Household Budget Survey should be used more effectively for poverty monitoring. Improvements in data collection and processing are recommended.

Conclusion

The report underscores the importance of both economic growth and targeted social policy reforms in reducing poverty in Russia. While growth has been a key driver of poverty reduction, especially in the post-1998 period, social policy reforms are necessary to ensure that the benefits of growth reach the poor more effectively. The findings are based on a large and comprehensive dataset, making the analysis more reliable than previous studies. The report serves as a foundation for future poverty reduction strategies, highlighting the need for a more targeted and effective approach to social policy and monitoring.