Most of the poor are two-parent families with children. Test

The relevance of research. Poverty reduction is a key task of socio-economic progress, largely determining not only the political stability of the country, but also prospects in the global world. Therefore, in the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation until 2020, developed by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, the reduction of poverty and inequality is considered a priority national economic task, and indicators of the level and profile of poverty are among the main indicators of the effectiveness of investments in human capital. Accordingly, research into the causes of poverty, which is rooted in the aggravated contradictions in the models of combining labor and capital and the distribution of powers between markets, the state and families to ensure the level and quality of life, has become more relevant. It is becoming increasingly clear that without reducing the level of poverty and eliminating its extreme forms, it is impossible to achieve an increase in the quality of human capital and economic growth, as well as create the prerequisites for expanding the social base of modernization and increasing labor productivity.

Although the view of economic growth as the main indicator of development and a factor in poverty reduction remains dominant, this approach has come under serious criticism in the last 20 years. The need for its revision has sharply increased in the context of the modern crisis, and Nobel laureates J. Stiglitz and A. Sen made a significant contribution to this process. In discussing the causes of the crisis, they noted a growing gap between the information contained in aggregate GDP data and what actually matters for well-being. Therefore, the time has come to shift the emphasis from measuring production to measuring the level and quality of life of the population. This requires the creation of a new concept for development analysis, in which indicators of well-being and sustainability of achieved results would occupy an important place, and monetary and non-monetary poverty criteria should become an integral part of them.

The urgency of this approach for Russia is due to the fact that the results of economic growth have ceased to have a positive impact on inequality, the level, and especially the structure of poverty. With high social expenditures and overall positive dynamics of economic progress, a trend has emerged of deteriorating social well-being and growing social tension. This indicates the need to adjust socio-economic policies in the field of well-being based on deepening the theoretical analysis of poverty, its criteria and the development of statistical tools. This determines the choice* of the dissertation research topic.

The purpose of the study is to develop a conceptual framework for monitoring and researching poverty in Russia, taking into account the characteristics of economic, institutional and socio-cultural development and social policy measures aimed at reducing poverty.

The object of research is the Russian population and. separate socially? demographic groups of households classified as poor based on various wealth and consumption characteristics.

The subject of the study is monetary and non-monetary forms of poverty, the socio-demographic and economic factors that determine them, as well as the system of socio-economic policy measures aimed at reducing poverty.

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

Analyze and systematize the main theoretical, methodological and practical approaches to defining poverty as an economic category, constructing national and comparative poverty lines, and measuring well-being;

Critically review and give a generalized description of the capabilities and limitations of Russian poverty monitoring, taking into account the entire range of analytical and management tasks, including Russia’s obligations to implement the Millennium Development Goals and the ability to adapt to the statistical tools of OECD countries;

Develop and test new poverty lines on empirical data for a comprehensive analysis of monetary and non-monetary forms of its manifestation, shifting the focus of the study of the problem towards household consumption, determining opportunities for development and implementing social policy measures aimed at reducing poverty;

For Russian households, propose new criteria for assessing well-being and opportunities for development, taking into account income, housing and property security, access to the labor market, social transfers and services, inter-family solidarity, level of education and health status;

Conduct a comparative analysis and identify the features of the level, structure and risks of poverty in Russia for various socio-demographic groups of the population using new poverty lines and welfare criteria, separately considering households with children, pensioners and non-working able-bodied citizens;

Research and typologize the main factors of poverty, assessing the impact of economic growth or recession, government policy on the labor market, income redistribution through the system of pensions and social benefits, inter-family assistance and support;

Propose conceptual solutions for a national monitoring model that allows for a comprehensive analysis of poverty and measurement of progress in poverty reduction, including cross-country comparisons;

Formulate proposals for socio-economic policies aimed at reducing poverty.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the study was made up of fundamental and applied scientific works of domestic and foreign experts on human development, welfare, poverty and inequality, social policy, as well as family economics and socio-economic stratification.

Despite the fact that during the Soviet period poverty as an economic category was not analyzed, in the publications of V.M. Zherebina, N.P. Kuznetsova, G.V. Milner, M.A. Mozhina, N.E. Rabkina, N.M. Rimashevskaya, G.S. Sargsyan, when analyzing welfare, a differentiated approach to income analysis was formed and minimum consumer budgets were developed as an absolute category of minimum consumption, ensuring expanded reproduction of the population.

The foundations of quantitative analysis of poverty and inequality in Russia in the post-Soviet period were created by V.N. Bobkov, T.Yu. Bogomolova, I.I. Eliseeva, A.Ya. Kiruta, V.A Litvinov, M.M. Lokshin, L.A. Migranova, A.A. Razumov, N.M. Rimashevskaya, S.N. Smirnov,

A.B. Suvorov, A.E. Surinov, A.Yu. Shevyakov. In the works of M.D. Krasilnikova, I.I. Korchagina, L.I. Nivorozhkina, D.O. Popova, L.M. Prokofieva, N.E. Tikhonova developed alternative poverty criteria to the absolute monetary approach.

Russian scientists have made a significant contribution to the development of the concept of poverty within the framework of the concept of human development. Among them is E.M. Avraamova, S.A. Ayvazyan, M.E. Baskakova, S.N. Bobylev, V.A. Iontsev,

B.P. Kolesov, L.S. Rzhanitsyna. The works of R.P. are devoted to the study of labor market problems and their impact on the income of Russian households. Kolosova, T.M. Maleva, I.V. Soboleva, M.S. Toksanbaeva, T.Ya. Chetvernina.

Various aspects of the influence of social and family policy on the standard of living of the population are considered in the works of A.G. Vishnevsky, P.S. Grinberg, V.V. Elizarova, E.H. Zhiltsova, V.I. Zhukova, A.JI. Zhukova, S.B. Zakharova, S.B. Kalashnikova, G.B. Kleiner, V.V. Soptsova, L.I. Yakobson, E.R. Yarskaya-Smirnova.

Among foreign studies, it is worth noting the works of B. Rowntree, who became the founder of the absolute concept of poverty, which at the end of the 20th century was already considered mainly in a historical context, but A. Sen, defining it through opportunities, updated the absolute understanding of poverty for modern conditions. P. Townsend, J. Mack, S. Lansley created the concept of relative poverty, and JI. Rainwater and B. Van Praag introduced the concept of relative poverty. M. Revellon made a significant contribution to the development of poverty lines for international comparisons and was the first to raise the question of combined poverty lines. A. Atkinson, J. Bradshaw, J. Greer, J. Foster and E. Thorbeck created a theoretical framework for analyzing the level, profile and structure of poverty. J. White-Wilson, P. Clarke, A. McCauley, G. Espin-Andersen laid the foundation for research into the main factors of poverty and assessment of the impact of social policies on poverty.

Comprehensive poverty studies are regularly conducted under the auspices of international organizations: the World Bank, the International Labor Organization, the UN Development Program and the UN Children's Fund UNICEF. They pay special attention to cross-country comparisons, poverty criteria within the framework of the concept of human development, and determinants of well-being for certain socio-demographic groups of the population.

The study was based on a combination of qualitative analysis with 9 economic, statistical and sociological studies. Methodologically, it is based on the tools of the index method, descriptive and regression analysis, methods of organizing, processing, updating and generalizing data from sample household surveys, and models for harmonizing macro- and micro-level data. The complexity of the analysis was ensured by the study of monetary and non-monetary criteria at the macroeconomic and microeconomic levels.

The information base for the study was state statistics and primary databases of the following sample household surveys:

1. Primary data from the quarterly survey of budgets of 46 thousand households (HBS) conducted by Rosstat;

2. Data from two waves of a survey of poverty among the urban population of the European part of Russia conducted by the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 1996 and 2000, containing the information necessary to construct an index of deprivation, monetary absolute and non-monetary, subjective poverty lines;

3. Data from the National Survey of the well-being and participation of the population in social programs (NOBUS-2003), containing a wide range of indicators of economic activity of the population, level and quality of life. A survey with a sample of 40 thousand households and 117 thousand respondents was conducted by Rosstat in 2003;

4. Data from a special poverty sample survey with a sample of 3,000 households, implemented in 2005 by the Independent Institute for Social Policy in the Leningrad Region (SPRILO);

5. Data from two waves of the panel study “Parents and Children, Men and Women in the Family and Society,” conducted in 2004 and 2007. Independent Institute of Social Policy based on a sample of 11 thousand households - RiDMiZh-2004 and RiDMiZh-2007;

6. Data from a survey of 3,000 households “Crisis and behavior of Russian households” (KPDH-2010), conducted by the Independent Institute of Social Policy.

7. Data from the Russian Monitoring of the Economic Situation and Health of the Population, conducted annually by the National Research University Higher School of Economics using a panel sample (RLMS).

Provisions for defense:

1. A comparative analysis of the main theoretical concepts of poverty and national practices of their application allows us to conclude that, within the framework of absolute, relative and subjective concepts, it is necessary to distinguish between monetary and non-monetary approaches to its definition and measurement. Statistical monitoring of the level and profile of poverty is based on monetary poverty lines, the main one for Russia being the cost of living, while fundamental scientific research is moving towards non-monetary criteria.

2. It is substantiated that differences in the socio-demographic profile of poverty according to alternative estimates must be taken into account in socio-economic policy, which should be differentiated in relation to different socio-demographic groups of the population. When using the deprivation index, the maximum risks are typical for families of pensioners, which is due to a shortage of social care services and restrictions in access to the healthcare system. Monetary poverty is more common among families with children. These differences are significant and persist throughout the post-Soviet period. Discrepancies are also observed in estimates of subjective poverty, in the structure of which before the crisis there was a predominance towards the elderly population, and as a result of the last crisis - towards the youth.

3. It is shown that extreme forms of poverty, identified through the use of consensual poverty lines, international

eleven ! absolute extreme poverty line and estimates of calorie intake are concentrated among families with children. The mechanisms of formation of child poverty are revealed and it is proved that the system of family benefits is not tied to the stages of the family life cycle.

1 4. It has been established that in the context of the current Russian model of economic development, characterized by high differentiation of wages and incomes of the population, a low coefficient of replacement of lost earnings with pensions and underdeveloped institutional mechanisms to promote the formation and implementation of human potential, economic growth ceases to be the main instrument of poverty reduction policy .

5. Based on the decomposition of inequality into intergroup and intragroup, it is shown that market channels for expanding opportunities for improving well-being, such as employment, education, region and locality of residence, work poorly: intragroup differentiation on these grounds significantly exceeds intergroup differentiation. This indicates the creation of conditions for the formation of an urban underclass and the low quality of mass vocational education! and the structural gap between the education system and the demand for labor in the labor market. In such a situation, stimulating points of economic growth and investing in education do not lead to adequate changes in living standards.

6. It was revealed that the main reason for the weak influence of the social protection system on the dynamics of poverty is the contradictory nature of its development trends, manifested in the simultaneous focus on priority support for certain socio-demographic groups of the population and poor households. This duality hinders the effective development of targeted programs to support the poor.

7. The directions and mechanisms for the development of targeted programs are substantiated

12 for the poor, representing the opportunity to create a differentiated system of conditional cash transfers and non-monetary types of social support. The need for differentiation is predetermined by the concentration of certain forms of poverty among families with children, elderly and able-bodied citizens, urban and rural residents, developed and subsidized regions. Conditionality presupposes the existence of mutual obligations of donors and recipients regarding the goals and results of development.

The scientific novelty of the dissertation lies in the development of an integrated approach to the analysis of poverty in Russia, which allows, based on alternative criteria, to give it a detailed description in modern economic, institutional and socio-cultural conditions, to conduct cross-country comparisons, to develop and implement effective policy measures aimed at reducing poverty levels. and depths of poverty.

1. A non-monetary relative poverty line adapted to Russian conditions has been proposed and justified in the context of sustainable human development, allowing! identify deprivations in current consumption. Instrumentally, it is presented in the form of an index, and relativity is determined by the fact that deviations from the prevailing average consumption standard in the country are considered deprivations. Its application for analysis changes our understanding of the socio-demographic profile and poverty risks for various socio-demographic groups of the population.

2. A methodology for differentiating poverty based on a combination of monetary and non-monetary criteria of absolute, relative and subjective poverty has been developed and tested. It has been empirically confirmed that poverty zones determined by one criterion weakly intersect when comparing monetary and non-monetary poverty lines within the same conceptual approach and when comparing conceptually

13 alternative non-monetary boundaries. This means that not all the absolutely poor are among the relatively poor and vice versa. To differentiate poverty, a combined criterion is proposed based on the intersection of absolute monetary, relative non-monetary and subjective non-monetary poverty lines. Poverty is recognized as consensual, confirmed by three criteria, and forms of its manifestation that correspond to only one conceptual criterion are considered alternative. The development of this particular research area allows for differentiated policies aimed at reducing poverty.

3. A stage-by-stage qualitative typology of poverty factors was carried out, taking into account the characteristics of economic development, implemented social policy and models of economic behavior of households. At the first stage, based on the analysis of detailed poverty profiles, four domains of factors determining the dynamics of well-being of Russian households were identified: income security; labor market; social support system and market development resources. At the second stage, the main indicators of domains were selected at the macro and micro levels. The use of this typology to analyze the dynamics of poverty allowed us to conclude that the influence of economic growth on poverty reduction in the conditions of modern Russia and the need to implement a differentiated policy of social support for the population are reduced.

4. The feasibility of using different poverty criteria for analytical purposes, regular statistical monitoring of development results and developing policies to support poor households and individual socio-demographic groups of the population is methodologically justified and empirically confirmed. The relative monetary poverty line is recommended for statistical monitoring. For a system of targeted poverty benefits, it was proposed

14 living wage, calculated on the basis of the normative-statistical method. A systematic analysis of poverty is possible only if the entire range of monetary and non-monetary criteria of absolute, relative and subjective poverty is used. This conceptual model of national poverty monitoring allows us to solve the whole range of managerial, analytical and political problems that arise when developing a strategy to promote poverty reduction.

5:. A methodology for assessing well-being at the household level, adapted to the characteristics of the modern consumption structure, has been developed and tested. To assess current consumption, consistent welfare indices are proposed that take into account income, property and housing security both in the context of poverty and in a broader stratification context. It has been proven that when assessing income, it is advisable to switch to using scales for bringing the per capita income of households of different sizes and socio-demographic composition to a comparable form. Instrumentally, this problem is solved through the use of income equivalence scales that take into account the effect of savings on family size. It has been shown that the use of equivalence scales reduces the risk of poverty for families with children if the current subsistence level is used as the poverty line. The introduction of equivalence scales and the relative monetary poverty line into the practice of assessing per capita income will allow for correct comparisons of income and poverty indicators with OECD countries.

Practical significance of the dissertation. The results of the dissertation research allow:

Assess the socio-demographic profile and poverty risks for various population groups using monetary and non-monetary poverty lines;

Identify the impact of economic, institutional, socio-cultural and socio-structural conditions on the reproduction of poverty;

Justify ways to reduce poverty through measures in the labor market, family and pension policy, and social protection of the population.

The results of the study were used by the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation in the preparation of normative documents regulating the minimum consumer basket, adopted in 2000 and updated in 2005-2007, in the development of new approaches to determining the subsistence level (2006 -2008) and the creation systems of social contracts when receiving targeted assistance (2009); The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation in the preparation of the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation until 2020 (2008); The Moscow Government to determine the development strategy for the city of Moscow for the period until 2025 (2008-2009); Department of Social Protection of the Population of Moscow in developing the main directions for the development of social protection of the population of Moscow for 2012-2016; The International Labor Organization when developing recommendations for Russia on a poverty reduction strategy (2000), the United Nations Development Program when assessing progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals*. (2005 and 2010); the World Bank in developing recommendations for Russia on targeted programs for the poor and conditional transfers (2005-2007); Representative of the UN Children's Fund in the Russian Federation in assessing progress in achieving the goals of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2011).

Approbation of research results. The dissertation materials were tested in the implementation of 15 budget scientific topics, government contracts and research grants. The main results were presented at international and all-Russian conferences:

1998, International Conference “Measuring Poverty by the Deprivation Method: Experience of Russia and Great Britain”, Great Britain, University of Essex;

2000, International conference “Features of the level and quality of life in post-Soviet Russia”, Paris, Institute of Demography of France;

2001, International Conference of the World Bank and the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation “Development of targeted programs for the poor in modern Russia”, Moscow;

2002, UNDP International Conference “Measuring Human Development”, Astana, Kazakhstan;

2004, Russian-German seminar “Poverty and social protection of the population”, Friedrich Ebert Foundation (Germany) and the All-Russian Center for Living Standards*, Moscow;

2005, International seminar of the CIS countries “Statistics in Eastern European countries”, Paris, Institute of Statistics of France;

2005, International Conference “Measurement, forms and factors of poverty: a comparative approach”, Paris, French Institute of Demography;

2006, 2nd Meeting of the UNICEF Advisory Council for Eastern Europe and the CIS countries on child poverty*, Bucharest, Romania;

2007, International Scientific Conference “Family in the Stream of Change: Demographic Challenges to Social Policy”, Higher School of Economics and Independent Institute for Social Policy, Moscow;

2007, International Conference “Traditional and new groups at risk of poverty in the former Soviet republics and Eastern European countries”, with financial support from the French Academy of Sciences (CNRS), Prague, Czech Republic;

2007, Meeting of the UNICEF working group on poverty (Geneva office) “Poverty reduction in the CIS countries”, Morges, Switzerland;

2008, International scientific conference “Population, family, standard of living”, dedicated to the Year of the Family and the 20th anniversary of ISEPS, ISEPS RAS, Moscow;

2008, International scientific and practical conference “Quality and standard of living of the population: social structure of Russian society”, All-Russian Center for Living Standards, Moscow;

2009, International scientific conference “Traditional and new groups at risk of poverty in the former republics of the USSR and countries of Eastern Europe”, St. Petersburg;

2009, International Conference of UNICEF and the Foundation for Support of Children in Difficult Life Situations “Childhood without Cruelty and Violence: Protection and Assistance”, Moscow;

2009, Russian Economic Congress, Moscow;

2011, XII annual international scientific conference on problems of economic and social development, Higher School of Economics, Moscow.

In total, 80 printed works with a total volume of 184 printed pages were published on the topic of the dissertation, including: the author's monograph, 7 monographs edited by the author, 19 articles in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and scientific journals included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission.

The research results presented in this paragraph allow us to identify four main domains for analysis in the second stage:

1. Distribution relations in the sphere of generating income of the population;

2. The impact of new market opportunities on the dynamics of well-being and poverty;

3. Opportunities and restrictions in the labor market, including quantitative (employment) and price (wages) components;

4. The contribution of social programs to the dynamics of poverty.

4.2. Dynamics of the level, structure and differentiation of income of the population in post-Soviet Russia

Poverty, the measurement of which is based on the principles of the absolute concept within the Russian national concept, is determined by the value of the subsistence minimum and the level of the welfare indicator compared with this value: In previous chapters, the issue of choosing a welfare indicator was already considered, and it was noted that at the macroeconomic level it is per capita income in monthly terms. It is the dynamics of this indicator, defined as the sum of all cash receipts, including wages, business income, social transfers, income from property and other types of income, that plays a decisive role in assessing the level of poverty. In terms of content, indicators of the dynamics of the level, structure and differentiation of income are associated with each of the four identified domains of poverty factors.

To understand the general trends of the changes taking place, let us turn to a retrospective covering the period of economic reforms, starting from 1991 (Fig. 4.1). The systemic economic and political crisis of the early 90s of the last century, which led to the collapse of the USSR and the creation of new states, including Russia, was accompanied by a large-scale decline in population income. Price liberalization in January 1992 led to

Let us dwell in more detail on the stage of sustainable economic growth, which we consider to be the period from 2000 to 2007. In 2007, compared to 2000, real incomes of the population increased by 2.7 times, real wages by 2.6 times, real pensions by 1.7 times, and GDP by 1.6 times ( Fig. 4.2). It should be noted that in the time interval under consideration, the most significant positive changes in household incomes occurred in 2003: despite the fact that GDP grew by 107.3%, the growth rate of real monetary incomes of the population relative to December 2002 was 126.5%, the share of the poor population fell to 21.9%.

Since 2005, there has been a stagnation in the process of income growth, but at the end of this year, as already noted, we are witnessing a certain historical moment: the completion of the stage of restoration of the pre-reform level of income (1991). A year later, the moment of restoration of the real average wage is recorded, (including hidden), which cannot yet be said about statistically observed wages and pensions. Against the background of the overall dynamics of income, pension provision appears to be the most problematic (Fig. 4.1 and 4.2). The real pension has not only not reached the level.

1991, but the pace of its growth, starting in 2005, began to sharply lag behind other sources of income. As a result, the average pension reached the level of the subsistence level of pensioners and froze at this level, which allows us to consider the current pension system only as an institution to combat poverty, and not sustainable development. The vulnerable group in this case are unemployed women of retirement age, who more often than men live together with unemployed women of working age.

Another key parameter of pension provision is the replacement coefficient (or rate), calculated as the ratio of the average pension to the average accrued wages in the economy. In the USSR and throughout the first half of the 1990s, this ratio varied between 30-35%. On the eve of the 1998 crisis, the ratio

191 replacement reached almost 40%, then there followed a sharp decline - by almost 10 percentage points, then a slight increase, but since 2002, that is, since the beginning of the pension reform, its dynamics have become steadily negative. The absolute minimum was reached by 2007, when the average pension was less than 23% of the average salary. Changes in the pension indexation policy and the crisis made their own adjustments. Unlike wages, the real size of which has decreased under the influence of the crisis, pensions are indexed at a rate exceeding the rate of inflation. As a result, in 2008 the replacement rate increased to 24.3%, and in August-September 2009 - to approximately 29% of the average salary.

Despite the sharp drop in pensions in 1992, for most of the 1990s, until the 1998 crisis, pensions were indexed better than wages*, and their average amount exceeded the subsistence level of a pensioner. As a result, the financial situation of pensioners was relatively better than that of other social groups. The situation changed after the 1998 crisis. From that moment on, wage growth began to outpace the growth of pensions. This lag became especially dramatic after the start of the pension reform in 2002. Accordingly, during the period of economic growth in the 2000s. The well-being of families whose main source is pensions has begun to deteriorate relative to other groups, and, above all, those whose income primarily depends on wages. This situation ended with the onset of the current financial and economic crisis.

Positive changes in the dynamics of population income in 2000-2007. were accompanied by a transformation of their structure according to sources of income. Higher growth rates of average wages contributed to an increase in its share in the income structure: from 62.8% to

2000 to 64.9% in 2006. At the same time, the share of wages continues to remain below the Soviet level. This is largely due to

192 by replacing this type of cash income of the population with a new form of labor income - income from business activities. Together with the wage fund of employees in 2005, they amounted to 76.2% of all cash income. By 2006, the share of such sources of household income as business income and property income increased by 3.3 times compared to 1992, and together they began to account for a fifth of the total.

When analyzing the impact of the 2008 crisis on the standard of living of the Russian population, let us once again turn to estimates of the decline in incomes in the conditions of earlier crises, in particular in August 1998. There are arguments in favor of the inappropriateness of such a comparison, and the most important one boils down to the fact that the crisis 1998 ended a long period of decline in the Russian economy, which at the final stage intersected with the global financial crisis. This was followed by a phase of rapid recovery and economic growth. In 2008-2009, on the contrary, we are dealing only with the beginning of a larger global economic, structural and financial crisis, the depth of which is not yet clear. However, turning to the past crisis is due to only one motive - to assess the limits of the fall. income; because in 1998, using the method of one-stage devaluation of the ruble, the economy was strictly brought to a balance of domestic and external demand and supply.

So, the August 1998 crisis most of all reduced the real level of pensions and wages hidden from statistical observation, and their fall can be characterized as a shock (Table 4.1). Pensions continued to decline in 1999, while in the current crisis they are growing. Dynamics of changes in pensions in 2007-2009. will be discussed in detail below, but in the context of comparison with the previous crisis, it should be noted that the observed increase in pensions in the context of a large-scale deficit in the pension fund significantly limits the development of other social anti-crisis programs. In 1998, official wages fell by a third, incomes fell by 28% and,

193 as a result, poverty increased to 31%. If we compare the effects of the current and previous crises on incomes, the current crisis has so far had virtually no impact on the incomes of the population. However, if the mechanisms of “hard” devaluation are used, we may experience a drop in income comparable to the previous crisis. In the first year after the 1998 crisis, due to import substitution, wages hidden from observation were restored most quickly, which contributed to the rapid recovery of small and medium-sized businesses, and only starting in 2000, a general process began: accelerated growth. In the context of the current crisis, it is important to emphasize that there is currently no similar potential for import substitution, just as there are no other new windows for the development of small and medium-sized businesses, therefore there are no obvious economic prospects for the development of this sector.

CONCLUSION

Summing up the results of the dissertation work devoted to the analysis of the socio-demographic profile, factors and forms of manifestation of poverty of the Russian population, we will formulate the main conclusions, results and recommendations arising from the study.

The results of the analysis of conceptual approaches to the definition and measurement of poverty indicate that poverty, as an economic and social category, is relative in time and space, therefore approaches to its measurement are constantly transformed under the influence of economic, social, political and institutional factors. Consequently, methodological approaches to assessing poverty must be consistent with the emerging trends and the achieved level of economic, political and social development; system of priorities of state policy in the field of economics and social development; the existing system for organizing poverty data sources and prospects for their improvement.

Any concept* of defining and measuring poverty presupposes a methodological solution to two fundamental issues. First, establishing a poverty line or that minimum standard below which is considered poverty. Secondly, the determination of such characteristics of the level and quality of life of households, the comparison of which with the poverty line makes it possible to classify a family or individual as poor. Traditionally, there are three conceptual approaches to defining poverty: absolute, relative and subjective, and they are considered as alternatives. At the same time, alternativeness is manifested not only in a conceptual context, but also in the choice of monetary and non-monetary criteria for identifying poverty. In fact, in monetary terms, absolute, relative and subjective poverty lines represent a series of not alternative, but evolutionary poverty lines. The relative is higher than the absolute, and the subjective, in turn, is higher than the relative, and the monetary measurement eliminates the problem of exclusion from the number of poor when moving to lines of a higher order. In the case of non-monetary lines, when moving from one line to another or from monetary to non-monetary, some of the poor lose this status for the reason that a number of forms of manifestation of poverty are not reflected in the dynamics of monetary incomes of the population. To increase the degree of consistency and consistency of poverty assessments, a method of combining various definitions is used, the result of which is the identification of segments of fully consensual, partially consensual and single-criteria poverty. In* the dissertation work, three types of alternatives in measuring poverty are substantiated and empirically confirmed. The first arises in the case of monetary poverty lines in the chain: absolute, relative, subjective poverty line - and means a conceptual transition to higher-order poverty lines on the principle of included sets. The second is a conceptual transition in the non-monetary definition of poverty, when we are no longer talking about included sets, and each definition has a zone of independent poverty. And finally, the third case is when, within the framework of one concept, monetary and non-monetary criteria of poverty are compared.

The study showed that it is impossible to construct a single poverty line to address issues of monitoring, forecasting, analytical, management and political nature. National monitoring of most developed countries is based on a variety of single-criteria and consensual poverty lines. The Russian national poverty monitoring proposes to distinguish three groups of poverty lines, each of which contains lines to distinguish general and extreme poverty. The first is for the purposes of ongoing monitoring and management decision-making. It includes

305 absolute monetary poverty line, calculated on the basis of the subsistence minimum, and absolute monetary social poverty line to establish a minimum guaranteed income. In the future, it would be advisable to move from an absolute monetary threshold to a relative monetary threshold. The second group - for solving analytical problems - includes relative and subjective non-monetary poverty lines. For a comprehensive analysis, including the identification of consensual poverty, it is advisable to use three criteria: the subsistence level (absolute monetary, poverty line), deprivation index (relative non-monetary) and subjective non-monetary poverty line. This group also includes a national non-monetary line, which classifies as extremely poor everyone who has a level of caloric intake below that recommended in accordance with medical standards. The need for international comparisons determines the formation of a third group of poverty lines, combining relative and absolute "monetary poverty lines. The first. is determined at the level of 60% of the median income, and the second is calculated based on an estimate of the cost of daily consumption at the level of 2.15 US dollars, converted into national currency at purchasing power parity.

The results of the dissertation research made it possible to prove that when assessing income, it is advisable to switch to using scales for bringing per capita household income to a comparable form.

The economic nature of this effect is due to the presence of general family expenses and the dependence of consumer behavior models on the size and socio-demographic composition of the family.

Instrumentally, the problem is solved through the use of income equivalence scales that take into account savings on family size.

The use of the absolute poverty line and scales for converting per capita income into equivalent ones entails a significant reduction in the level and depth of

306 poverty. When using the national equivalence scale, the average poverty level for the population is reduced by 32%. In the case of other, more stringent international scales, the effect of reducing poverty is even greater, but changes in the structure of household consumption do not yet confirm the advisability of their use: The use of scales is also reflected in a change in the poverty profile, reducing poverty among families with children. Empirically, it has been confirmed that in the case of using the relative poverty line, the use of equivalent scales for bringing income to a comparable form has virtually no effect on the scale of poverty, but they adjust the profile, increasing the risks for pensioners and reducing them for families with children.

The practical application of equivalence scales is not limited to just bringing income to a comparable form. In social policy, they can be used to develop standards for minimum guarantees that are family-oriented or take into account the dependency burden. In particular, when determining the size of the minimum wage, which guarantees for those newly entering the labor market the opportunity to provide the child with the minimum required level of consumption; standard, equal; the amount of the subsistence minimum for an able-bodied person and half the subsistence minimum for a child should be adjusted by a coefficient of 0;81, taking into account the effects of savings for a family of three. As of the 2nd quarter of 2011, the level of the minimum wage, taking into account the child dependent burden, amounted to 117% of the subsistence level of the able-bodied person. A similar procedure should be applied when determining the social poverty line, which establishes the minimum guaranteed income. The introduction of equivalence scales into the practice of assessing per capita income will allow for correct comparisons of income and poverty indicators with OECD countries.

The Greer-Foster-Thorbeck Poverty Index is one of the main analytical tools in the study of poverty problems. To the zero degree it shows the level, to the first degree the depth, and to the second degree the severity of poverty. The zero degree of the index is widely used in the analysis of poverty profiles and structures. The first, capable of estimating the income gap of the poor in rubles, best takes into account the impact of policies on poverty dynamics. By relating revenue shortfalls to social policy expenditures, policy effects can be assessed. It was this poverty index, in combination with non-monetary poverty lines, that led to the conclusion that economic growth has a weak impact on poverty and that social policy measures are oriented towards preferential support for the non-poor.

An analysis of the profile of Russian poverty based on the current national poverty line showed that the predominance of working-age people among the poor is a distinctive feature of Russian poverty. Scientific analysis of the poverty profile shows that children are at high risk of poverty, a conclusion that remains true even when modern approaches are applied to defining the poverty line and measuring the household resources that are compared with it. The use of alternative poverty criteria and income equivalence scales reduces the poverty gap between children and the elderly, but children continue to be the leaders in poverty risk. It has been empirically proven that the qualitative heterogeneity of poverty, identified using various criteria, has increased during the stage of economic growth. This confirms the need, firstly, to include alternative measurements in the constant monitoring of poverty; secondly, to develop differentiated policies to promote poverty reduction.

To analyze the factors of poverty in the dissertation research, a two-stage methodology for their typology is proposed, taking into account

308 (features of economic development, implemented social policy and

I models of household economic behavior. At the first stage, a comprehensive analysis of poverty profiles is carried out. Comprehensiveness is ensured by the use of three methods of analysis, the first of which is based on grouping the population and households based on economic and socio-demographic characteristics and the use of indices and alternative definitions of poverty. This method made it possible to identify three overlapping groups, the socio-economic status 4 and behavior patterns of which determine the specifics of Russian poverty: households with children; households with pensioners and households with non-working able-bodied people. The second method is to determine the main factors of poverty based on a detailed analysis of the poverty profile of three identified groups of households. It allowed us to identify three domains

I factors of poverty: distribution relations - in the sphere of formation of income of the population; models of household connection with the labor market; influence of social programs on the dynamics of poverty. The third method is regression analysis of poverty factors on individual and household

1 levels. It allowed us to identify another domain of factors: the impact of new market opportunities on the dynamics of well-being and poverty. At the second stage, at the macro and micro levels, a selection of the main factors in each of the selected groups is carried out. "The implementation of this technique made it possible to prove that the catalyst

I poverty is the situation on the labor market. At the macroeconomic level, the Russian labor market model is focused on maintaining employment by reducing wages, reducing the number of jobs in large and medium-sized enterprises, and moving workers to lower-paid small businesses and the informal employment sector. Only for the period from 2002 to 2010. the number of jobs filled by full-time employees at large and medium-sized enterprises decreased by 5.5 million people. At the end of 2010, such workers accounted for only 50% of the total

309 number of employed population. Despite the fact that macro data indicate high employment in Russia, sample surveys of the population indicate that about 10% of Russian households contain people of working age who do not work or study. Testing poverty factors through logistic regression at the individual and household levels shows that the odds of being unemployed are twice as likely to be poor compared to those in the workforce, and households with unemployed working-age people are 3.4 times more likely to be poor. The Russian economic model ensures competitiveness through low wages; thereby forming a specific structure and profile of Russian poverty with increased risks for families with children and a high share among the working poor.

Developing the theory of basic functional capabilities, A. Sen noted that the effectiveness of the socio-economic environment is largely determined by equality of opportunity in the implementation of available resources. In other words, it is necessary to answer the question of the significance of new market development resources for promoting poverty reduction.

An analysis of distribution relations has shown that, under the existing development model, economic growth continues to contribute to increased inequality and the widespread prevalence of non-monetary forms of poverty. New market opportunities for increasing well-being are either available to a very limited number of households (income from property) or are characterized by high intra-group inequality, which indicates poor conditions for the implementation of growth resources available to the masses of the population (entrepreneurial activity, labor mobility, education). The dissertation proposes to use Theil entropy indices, which make it possible to decompose inequality into intergroup and intragroup, to check how households are differentiated by income, differing in the potential for connection with the labor market, level of education and place of residence (region

310 residence, type of settlement). Employment, education and urban living are seen as traditional market resources for increasing well-being. The region of residence is tested based on the specifics of the Russian economy, which is manifested in the concentration of points of economic growth in metropolitan cities and regions with an export-oriented economy. The region of residence indirectly measures the opportunities for effective, from the point of view of increasing well-being, spatial labor mobility. The higher the intergroup inequality, the more likely it is that high or, conversely, low incomes are associated with groups of households that differ in the characteristics being tested.

According to the results obtained during the dissertation research, neither education, nor employment, nor living in regions or types of settlements with favorable economic conditions guarantee a high level of well-being. In all cases, intragroup inequality is significantly higher than intergroup inequality. As development progresses, there is a trend of increasing positive effects on the well-being of education, employment, and opportunities for* rational labor mobility, but it is insignificant compared to the growth rate of GDP and average income. Consequently, other mechanisms of access to high incomes are at work.

The social protection system that has developed in modern Russia, provided that the contribution of social transfers to the population’s income has reached a historical maximum, is not an effective institution for promoting poverty reduction. All insurance and non-insurance benefits, including the basic part of the old-age labor pension, do not guarantee individual incomes at the subsistence level. Families with children under one and a half years old receive significant social assistance, which can reach up to 70% of the child’s subsistence level in the event of the birth of a second child. At the same time, families with children from one and a half to 16 years old have

311 right only to benefits for. children from poor families, the size of which varies by region, but the national average is low - 6% of the child’s subsistence level. The share of spending on targeted social programs for the poor in total spending on social policy continues to decline, and these programs themselves are characterized by low effectiveness. The maximum contribution of these programs to the income of recipients based on the results of sample household surveys does not exceed 10%; in general, the total contribution of these programs to the income of the population is less than the help of relatives. Supply shortage of health services; social services for caring for children and the elderly determine their widespread use; non-monetary poverty.

The increased authority of non-monetary criteria in assessing the standard of living has updated the use of the index method for; measuring well-being that takes into account a wide range of monetary and non-monetary characteristics. Proposed in; dissertation, a multidimensional index of material security, the values ​​of which at the household level are standardized ranks; varying from 0 to 100; is; is a "multidimensional" characteristic of material security, taking into account income, property and housing security, household consumption and their subjective assessments of material capabilities. This tool significantly expands analytical capabilities not only when studying poverty, but also in the case of identifying the well-being of other social groups, for example, the middle class.

Analysis of the socio-demographic profile, factors and forms of manifestation: poverty made it possible to formulate proposals for a new model of national poverty monitoring. It is based on the use of different poverty lines, the introduction of a national income equivalence scale that takes into account the effect of savings on food, and the modular principle of organizing household surveys.

The principle of modularity in this case is implemented in three directions. The first is to create the possibility of combining the results of the main surveys based on grouping by key household characteristics. The second is the identification of a constant and variable part in the program of each survey. And third, the ability to collect information on different programs from the same source for three years. For a comprehensive analysis of poverty, it is proposed to conduct three types of household surveys: (1) a survey of the living conditions of the population, the basis of which can be a survey of budgets, households (HBS), conducted quarterly by Rosstat; (2) a modernized current quarterly employment survey; (3) a survey of population incomes that is not yet available in Russia. The implementation of survey data and the introduction of the proposed family of poverty lines will allow, in a monitoring mode, to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the profile, factors and forms of manifestation of poverty.

The dissertation research allows us to conclude that the national strategy for promoting poverty reduction in Russia began to take shape only during the years of economic growth and was based on rising wages and the expansion of social protection measures for certain categories of the population. The minimum wage in January was

In 2001, 13.2% of the working-age subsistence level (PLS), by January 2009 it rose to 78% of the PMS. Two large-scale reforms were implemented in the social protection system (monetization of benefits and family policy measures), promoting income growth for the elderly and families with children under 1.5 years of age. They had an impact on the cash income of the population and were considered as measures of a strategy to help reduce poverty. The next step was implementation in 2008-2009. anti-crisis program of the Government, within the framework of which in January 2009 the minimum wage was doubled, unemployment benefits were increased by 1.5 times, and the wage fund for federal employees

313 budgetary sphere - 1.36 times. At this stage, the pension was repeatedly increased and measures were taken to reduce tension in the labor market. To support the incomes of pensioners, a program was adopted that guarantees each pensioner an individual income not lower than the subsistence level. In general, anti-crisis measures contained the fall in wages and contributed to a significant increase in pensions even in the most problematic year of 2008: in December 2008, the average real wage was 101% of the level in the corresponding period of the previous year, and the average pension was 124.1%. In 2009, these figures were 97.2% and 123.6%, respectively.

However, against the backdrop of anti-poverty measures, a process of growing income differentiation developed. This means that the budget sector, pensions and social support programs for the population developed more slowly than sectors of the economy associated with current economic growth. The second problem of the Russian strategy for promoting poverty reduction is due to the lack of significant progress in the development of measures aimed at eliminating extreme poverty, despite the fact that these are the actions recommended by the Millennium Declaration for medium- and highly developed countries.

So, in the first ten years of the second millennium, Russia, relying on the effects of economic growth and moderate development of social programs, significantly reduced the level of monetary poverty among workers and pensioners, but was unable to achieve significant progress in reducing monetary poverty among families with children and non-monetary poverty among all socio-demographic groups of the population. The development of two directions of socio-economic policy will allow us to overcome this contradiction.

The first can be formulated as follows: from a policy of low unemployment to a policy of effective employment, and from cheap and unskilled jobs to jobs with decent wages and high

314 labor qualifications. Currently, the vast majority of instruments and, accordingly, actions in the labor market are reduced to regulating open (registered) unemployment (2.6% of the economically active population) in order to maintain a formally high level of employment, but does not pursue the goal of restructuring employment (92% of the economically active population). active population). The policy of maintaining old inefficient jobs prevails over the policy of creating new effective jobs. Today's employment policy is not that, but a policy of counteracting unemployment. Its consequences are the preservation of the archaic structure of the economy, low labor productivity, low levels of wages in absolute terms, the formation and chronic reproduction of a group of “working poor”.

The second is related to the development of social programs: from social protection of certain categories of the population to priority support for poor households at various stages of the life cycle. The existing system of social support for the population, especially cash benefits for poor families with children, is not tied to the family life cycle. If the social support system is not tied to the life cycles of the family, then it does not perform the function of harmonizing the distribution of powers to ensure the level and quality of life between families, the state and markets. As a result, stress occurs for the family, to which it responds by reducing the birth rate, which entails “stress” for the social infrastructure that relies on the stability of the consumer contingent.

3. Norms of physiological needs for nutrients and energy for various groups of the population of the USSR, Ministry of Health of the USSR, 1991, No. 57.8691.

4. Regulations on the procedure for conducting examination of consumer basket projects for the main socio-demographic groups of the population in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (approved by Resolution of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated August 15, 2000 No. 58).

5. Resolution of February 17, 1999 N 192 “On approval of methodological recommendations for determining the consumer basket for the main socio-demographic groups of the population in the whole of the Russian Federation and in its constituent entities”, as amended on 06/04/2007 N 342.

6. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 5, 2000 No. 494 “On the examination of consumer basket projects for the main socio-demographic groups of the population in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.”

7. Federal Law “On the consumer basket as a whole for the Russian Federation” (Federal Law dated March 31, 2006 No. 44-FZ).

8. Federal Law of October 24, 1997 No. 134-F3 “On the subsistence minimum in the Russian Federation” (as amended on May 27, 2000 No. 75-FZ).

9. Yu. Federal Law of November 20, 1999 No. 201-FZ “On the consumer basket as a whole for the Russian Federation.”

10. Federal Law "On the subsistence level in the Russian Federation" (Collection of Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1997DCH 43,).

11. Federal Law No. 44-FZ, dated March 31, 2006 “On the consumer basket as a whole for the Russian Federation.”

12. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 2, 1992 No. 210 “On the system of minimum consumer budgets.”

13. Abazieva K.G., Nivorozhkina L.I. Fertility dynamics and poverty levels: is there a connection? // Terra Economicus., 2008. T. 6. No. 2. P. 35-45.

14. Avraamova E.M. Problems of adaptation to reforms // Social transformation of Russian society. M., 1995.

15. Avraamova E.M. Adaptation as a factor of differentiation of a transforming society // Problems of socio-psychological adaptation of the population during the period of transformation of society. M, 1999.

16. Avraamova E.M. Adaptation of the population to economic conditions and prospects for the formation of the middle class // Russia: socio-demographic situation. M., 2000.

17. Azgaldov G.G., Belyakov V.A., Bobkov V.N., Elmeev V.Ya., Perevoshchikov Yu.S. Qualimetry of life. M.: VTSUZH. 2006 820 p.

18. Current problems of family policy: Collective monograph / Ed. A.Yu. Shevyakova. M.: ISEPN RAS, 2010: - 148 p.

19. Ayvazyan S.A., Rimashevskaya N.M. Typology of consumption. - Moscow, Science, 1978.

20. Ayvazyan S.A. Towards a methodology for measuring synthetic categories of quality of life of the population. - “Economics and mathematical methods”, volume 39 (2003), no. 2.

21. Alexandrova A.L., Grishina E.E. Urban poverty in Russia and social assistance to the urban poor: analytical report. M.: Foundation "Institute of Urban Economics", 2004. - 168 p.

22. Baturin A.K., Volgarev M.N., Zinin V.G., Ovcharova L.N., Tutelyan V.A. and others. Nutrition in poor families. M., Education, 2002.

23. Baskakova M.E. and others. Problems of poverty of families with children in the city of Moscow. M.: Institute for Management of Social Processes of the State University-Higher School of Economics, Commissioner for Children's Rights in Moscow. LLC "Partner", 2009.

24. Poverty: alternative approaches to definition and measurement. Collective monograph. Scientific report / Ed. T.M. Maleva. Moscow Carnegie Center; Vol. 24. M., 1998.

25. Poverty and welfare of households in the Leningrad region. Based on the results of a sample survey of households in April 2005 / Edited by Ovcharova L.N., St. Petersburg, Celeste, 2007.

26. Bobkov V.N. Problems of assessing the standard of living in modern Russia. M.: VTSUZH. 1995.-258 p.

27. Bobkov V.N., Perevoshchikov Yu.S., Nemirovchenko N.M. Qualimetric economics of enterprise. M.: VCUZH, 2005. - 570 p.

28. Bobkov V.N., Gorlov I.S., Razumov A.A. and others. Quality and standard of living of the population in new Russia (1991-2005). Hand. auto coll. Bobkov V.N., M.: VCUZH, 2007- 719 p.

29. Bobkov V.N., Ochirova A.N., Grigorieva N.S. and others. Social standards of quality of life: Collection of articles / Ed. Ed. A.V. Ochirova, V.N. Bobkova, N.S. Grigorieva. M.: MAKS Press, 2008.- 232 p.

30. Bobkov V. N. Towards the formation of the social doctrine of Russia / V. Bobkov // Economist. 2008. - No. 7. - P. 2-14

31. Bobylev S.N., Girusov E.V., Perelet R.A., Economics of sustainable development. M.; Steps, 2004.

32. Bobylev S.N., Averchenkov. A.A., Solovyova S.B., Kiryushin P.A. Energy efficiency and sustainable development. - M.: Institute for Sustainable Development / Center for Environmental Policy of Russia, 2010. - 148 p.

33. Bogomolova T.Yu., Tapilina V:S. Migration of poverty: scale, reproduction, social spectrum // Sociological Research. - 2004. No. 12. - P. 17-30.

34. Bogomolova T.Yu., Tapilina V.S. Poverty in modern Russia: measurement and analysis // Economic science of modern Russia. 2005. -No. 1.-S. 93-106.

35. Bogomolova T.Yu., Tapilina V.S. Poverty in modern Russia: measurement and analysis // Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling. 2006. - No. 22. - P. 90-113.

36. Bogomolova T.Yu. Trajectories of movement of the Russian population in the space “poverty is not poverty” in the 1990-2000s // ECO. - 2011.- No. 5. P. 108-120.

37. Burdyak A. Ya., Popova D. O. Causes of poverty in families with children // Social policy: examination, recommendations, reviews. 2007. N 6. P. 31-36.

38. Vishnevsky A.G. Demographic modernization of Russia and its contradictions. World of Russia, 1999, No. 4

39. Volgin N.A. Strengthening the social orientation of the Russian economy: (Current problems, issues of theory and practice). M.: Publishing house RAGS, 1998. 36 p.

40. Grinberg P.S., Rubinshtein A.Ya. Economic sociodynamics. Russia: rules and reality. M., 2000

41. Gontmakher E. Social policy in Russia: lessons from the 90s. - M.: Helios ARV, 2000.-336 p.

42. Gontmakher E., Maleva T. Social problems of Russia and alternative ways to solve them // Economic Issues. - 2008. No. 2. - P. 61-72.

43. Gorelova N.A. Income policy and the quality of life of the population. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003. -653-p.

44. State social policy and household survival strategies / Davydova N.M., Menning N., Sidorina T.Yu. and etc.; under general editorship O.I. Shkaratana. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2003. - 463 p.

45. Differentiated balance of income and consumption of the population and its use in planning. M.: NIEI under the State Planning Committee, 1971.

46. ​​Income and social services: inequality, vulnerability, poverty / L.I. Nivorozhkina, T.M. Maleeva, S.B. Shishkin and others; edited by L.N. Ovcharova; NISP. M., Ed. House of State University Higher School of Economics, 2005.

47. Elizarov V.V. "New measures of demographic policy and their contribution to increasing support for families with children / V.V. Elizarov // Living standards of the population of the regions of Russia. 2007. - No. 5. - P. 5-27.

48. Elizarov V.V. State policy of supporting families with children and stimulating fertility: the experience of the USSR and Russia // Population problems in the mirror of history: Sixth Valenteev Readings: Collection of materials of the international conference / Ed. V.V.

49. Elizarova, I.A. Trinity. - M.: MAKS Press, 2010. - T. 2.

50. Eliseeva I.I., Burova N.V. Reforming the European system of national accounts. Questions of Statistics, 1999, No. 11, 52-57s.

51. Eliseeva I.I., Regional aspect of poverty measurement in Russia // Measurement, forms and factors of poverty: a comparative approach / Ed. Patrick Festy and Lydia Prokofieva. (Proceedings of INED. Issue 152.) - Paris, 2008. pp. 167-175.

52. Woman, man, family in Russia: the last third of the 20th century. Project "Taganrog" / Under. ed. N.M. Rimashevskaya., M.: ISEPN Publishing House, 2001.320 p.

53. Zherebin V:M. Household economics and some means of its macromodelling. "Economics and mathematical methods", M., 1997, No. 1.

54. Zherebin V.M. Classification, functions and significance of household activities // "Questions of Statistics", M., 1997, No. 2.

55. Zherebin V.M. Temporary and interregional comparisons of the living standards of the population // "Questions of Statistics", M., 1997, N11.

56. Zherebin V.M., Romanov A.N. Household Economics. M.: UNITY, 1998. 231 p.

57. Zherebin V.M., Zemlyanskaya V.N. Households: consumption under conditions of transformation // "Population", M., 2000, NN 3-4.

58. Zherebin V.M., Romanov A.N. Standards of living. M.: UNITY-DANA, 2002. 592 p. 61. Zhukov A.L.; Regulation and organization of remuneration. Tutorial. M.: MIC, 2002. "

59. Zhukov A.L. Wages: problems and solutions // Labor and social relations. 2002. No. 2.

60. Zhukov V.I. Modernization of social relations in Russia: plans, results, opportunities / V.I. Zhukov // SOCIS (Sociological Research). 2005. - No. 6.

61. Zhukov V.I. Russian transformations: sociology, economics, politics. M.: Academic. Project, 2003. - - 656 p.

62. Kalashnikov, S. V. Functional theory of the social state M.: Economics, 2002. - 190 p.

63. Kalashnikov S.V. Formation of a social state in Russia. M.: Economics, 2003. - 159 p.

64. Karapetyan A.Kh. Income and consumption of the population of the USSR. M.: Statistics, 1980.

65. Kiruta A., Shevyakov A. Differentiated balance of income and consumption of the population: new aspects of theory and practical applications. Questions of statistics. 1995. No. 7.

66. Kiruta A.Ya., Shevyakov A.Yu. Economic inequality, living standards and poverty of the population of Russia and its regions in the process of reforms: measurement methods and analysis of causal dependencies. M-: Epikon, 1999. -104 p.

67. Kiruta A.Ya., Shevyakov A.Yu. Inequality, economic growth and demography: unexplored relationships. / Institution of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Social Economics: Population Problems RAS.-M.: M-Studio, 2009. - 188 p. :

68. Kislitsina O. A. Inequality in the distribution of income and health in modern Russia. M, RIC ISEPN, 2005, 376 p.

69. Krasilnikova M.D. Subjective assessments of the level of poverty in Russia // Econ. and social change: monitoring societies; opinions: Inform. Bulletin 2000. -No. 6, p. 40-45.

70. Kleiner G.B. Evolution of institutional systems / CEMI RAS. - M.: Nauka, 2004.-240 p.

71. Kleiner G.B. On the debate about method: poverty research or poverty research? (About the article by M. Lokshin “The use of the scientific method in Russian research in the field of poverty”) // Questions of Economics. 2008, No. 6.

72. Kolosova R.M. Melikyan G.G. Employment, labor market and social-labor relations. - M.: Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University TEIS, 2008.

73. Korchagina I.I., Ovcharova L.N., Turuntsev E.V. System of poverty level indicators during the transition period in Russia. M.: Eurasia Foundation, 1998.

74. Korchagina I.I. Justification of equivalent coefficients, savings on a large family Population, M., ISEPN, 1998, No. 2

75. Kuznetsova N.P., Razumov A.A. Using the minimum consumer budget to determine minimum incomes and their indexation. In: Social protection of workers in market conditions. M., TsRDZ, 1992.

76. Litvinov V.A. Cash expenses and purchasing power of the population of Russian regions. M.: VCUZH, 1998. 203 p.

77. LITVINOV* V.A. Concentration and differentiation of cash income by. population groups. HSE Economic Journal, vol. 3.1999; No. 2.

78. Lokshin M.M. Research of the scientific method in Russian poverty research // Questions of Economics. - 2008. No. 6.

79. Milanovic B. Poverty, inequality and social policy in countries with transition economies: Working paper on fundamental research / World Bank.-M., 1995.

80. Milner G.V., Gilinskaya E.B. Methodological features of studying the standard of living of the population across the country. - Economic Sciences, 1981, No. 8, p. 41-47.

81. Methodology for aggregating indicators from household budget surveys. Expert. Application. 1998;

82. McCauley A. Definition and measurement of poverty // Poverty: scientists’ view of the problem. /Edited by Mozhina M.A., M;, ISEPN RAS, 1994.

83. Mozhina M.A., Popkin B., Baturin A.K. Methods for justifying the subsistence level in the Russian Federation // Poverty: scientists’ view of the problem. M., ISEPN RAS, 1994.

84. Mozhina M. A. Analysis of differentiation of income of the population. The Economist, 1995, No. 1.

85. Mozhina M.A., Ovcharova L.11., Popova R.I., Prokofieva L.M. et al. Poverty: alternative approaches to definition and measurement. Collective monograph. Scientific report / Ed. T.M. Maleva. Moscow Carnegie Center; Vol. 24. M., Moscow. Carnegie Center, 1998

86. Mozhina M.A. Distribution relations: income and consumption of the population: from the scientific heritage. Under the general editorship of N.M. Rimashevskaya, Ross. Academician Sciences, ISEPN. M., Gainullin, 2001, - 304 p.

87. Migranova L.A. Dynamics of the main indicators of living standards // Population. 2008. - No. 2.

88. Migranova L.A. Problems of the labor market and poverty of the population // Population. 2008. - No. 2.

89. Migranova L., Toksanbaeva M. Level and differentiation of wages in conditions of economic growth // Russia 2002-2005. Socio-demographic situation. XII analytical report. M.: Nauka, 2008.

90. Nivorozhkina L.I. Income and wage policy (textbook). YURGI, Rostov-on-Don, 1996.

91. Nivorozhkina L.I., Gustafsson B. Determinants of urban poverty (based on materials from the Taganrog-3 and Taganrog-4 projects) News of higher educational institutions of the North. -Kav. Region. Social Sciences, No. 2, 2001.

92. Review of social policy in Russia: the first half of the 2000s / ed. T. M. Maleva. Independent Institute for Social Policy. M., NISP, 2007.

93. Ovcharova L.N. Growing inequality in the level of material security: objective necessity or unfair distribution? // Fair and unfair social inequalities in modern Russia. M., Referendum, 2003.

94. Ovcharova L.N. Theoretical and practical approaches to assessing the level, profile and factors of poverty: Russian and international experience. Establishment of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Social Sciences. economist, population problems RAS. M.: M-Studio, 2009. - 268 p.

95. Ovcharova L., Teslyuk, E. Sensitivity of statistical indicators of poverty and inequality to alternative definitions of household welfare. Illustration using NOBUS survey data. World Bank, 2007.

96. Ovcharova L.N. Definition and measurement of poverty // Poverty: scientists’ view of the problem. /Edited by Mozhina M.A. M., ISEPN RAS, 1994.

97. Petit-Gerard K. Report “Social contracts and social programs”. TACIS project “Reform of the social protection system in the Russian Federation”. M., TACIS, 2005.

98. Poduzov A.A. Measuring poverty (foreign experience) // Problems of forecasting. 1996.№ 4-5.

99. Poduzov A.A., Kukushkin D.K. Poverty in Moscow // Issues of Economics. 1997. No. 7.

100. Poduzov A. A., Kukushkin D. K. Poverty in Russia: scale and structural features // Problems of forecasting. 1999. No. 1.

101. Poduzov A. A., Kukushkin D. K. Equivalence scale as a tool for measuring living standards // Problems of forecasting. 2000. No. 4.

102. Polterovich V.M. Elements of the theory of reforms / V.M. Polterovich. -M: ZAO Publishing House “Economy”, 2007. 447 p.

103. Popkin B., Mozhina M.A., Baturin A.K., Mroz T. Living wage in the Russian Federation: development of regional options and other methodological provisions. Report on the results of the RLMS survey. M., 1994.

104. Popova D.O., Burdyak A.Ya. Causes of poverty in families with children (based on the results of a survey of households in the Leningrad region). Social policy: expertise, recommendations, reviews. SPERO, No. 6, 2007.

105. Proposals for a poverty reduction strategy. Ed. Ovcharova L.N., M., MOTV2002.

106. Living wage in the Russian Federation Regulatory documents, methodological recommendations, comments. - M., 2000.

107. Prokofieva L.M. Household and family: features of the structure of the Russian population. Social policy: expertise, recommendations, reviews. SPERO, No. 6, 2007.

108. Rabkina N.E., Rimashevskaya N.M. Fundamentals of differentiation of wages and income of the population. Methods of economic and mathematical modeling / M.: Ekonomika, 1972. - 288 p.

109. Revellon M. Comparative poverty estimates // Working paper N 88-R, World Bank, Washington, 1999:

110. Razumov A., Sidorova Zh., Noskova S. Formation of workers’ income. Economist. 1992. No. 5.

111. Razumov A.A. Classification of the main approaches to defining and measuring poverty. //Man and labor, 2002. No. 9.

112. Razumov A.A. The working poor in Russia. M.: VCUZH, 2002. 258 p.

113. Razumov A.A., Yagodkina M.A., Poverty in modern Russia. -M.: Formula of Law, 2007. - 336 p.

114. Rzhanitsina L.S. Income of the population in Russia: main trends. Forecasting problems. 1998. No.6.

115. Rimashevskaya N.M., Ayvazyan S.A. Typology of consumption. - M.: Nauka, 1978.

116. Rimashevskaya N.M., Fedorenko N.P. Needs. Income. Consumption. -M.: Nauka, 1979.

117. Rimashevskaya N.M. Our living wage. Socialist Labor, No. 8, 1990.

118. Rimashevskaya N.M. Onikov JI.A. People's welfare: trends and prospects. M.: Nauka, 1991.

119. Rimashevskaya N.M., Bochkareva V.K. State mechanism for regulating population income: problems of improvement. Forecasting problems. 1997.No. 5.

120. Rimashevskaya N.M., Volkova G.N., Bochkareva V.K., Migranova JI.A., Ovcharova JI.H. and others. Targeted social assistance. Theory. Practice. Experiment. Ed. N.M. Rimashevskaya. M., ISEPN, 1999.

121. Rimashevskaya N.M. Poverty and marginalization of the population // Sociological studies. 2004. No. 4 P.33-43.

122. Rimashevskaya N. On social reform in Russia / N. Rimashevskaya // Problems of theory and practice of management. 2005. - No. 5. -S. 20-26.

123. Rimashevskaya N.M. Some problems of social reform in Russia / N. Mi Rimashevskaya // Problems of forecasting. 2006. - No. 2. -S. 3-16

124. Roik V.D. State and contractual regulation of wages and pensions. Foreign and domestic experience. - M.:MIK, 2008. -304 p.

125. Russian statistical yearbook. 1999: Stat. Sat./Goskomstat of Russia.-M., 1999.

126. Russian statistical yearbook. 2006: Stat. Sat./Rosstat. - M., 2006.139". Russian statistical yearbook. 2010: Statistical collection/ Rosstat. M., 2010.

127. Russian reforms: social aspects: Materials of the scientific and practical conference dedicated to the memory of G.V. Milner (Moscow, January 21, 1998). M.: HSE, 1998

128. Russia: preparing a strategy to combat poverty. Analysis and methodological approaches. Published by the ILO Office. M., 2001.

129. Sarkisyan G.S., Kuznetsova N.P. Family needs and income: Level, structure, prospects. M.: Economics, 1967.

130. Saving the people\ ed. N.M. Rimashevskaya. Institute of Social -econ. population problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. M.: Nauka, 2007. - 326 p.

131. Family and national welfare in a developed socialist society/Ed. N.M. Rimashevskaya and S.A. Karapetyan. M.: Mysl, 1985.-257 p.

132. Sen A. Development as freedom \ Transl. from English edited by and with afterwords. P.M. Nurieva. M.: New publishing house, 2004. 432 p. 325

133. Sidorina T.Yu., Smirnov S.N. Social politics. M.: Publishing house. House of the State University Higher School of Economics, 2004.

134. Sidorina T.Yu. Two centuries of social policy. M.: Russian. state humanist Univ., 2005. 442 p.

135. Smirnov S.N. Socio-economic inequality and its reproduction in modern Russia” // Free Thought XXI, 2009. No. 6 (1601).

136. Smirnov S.N. “Russian households: comparative analysis of the social consequences of economic crises // World of Russia: Sociology, ethnology, 2010. T. XIX. No. 3. P. 115-131.

137. Soboleva I.V. Strategy for the formation of competitive human potential // Russia in a globalizing world. M.: Nauka, 2005 (co-author).

138. Soboleva I.V. The development of human potential is a strategic task for the safe development of Russia. // Economic security of Russia: general course. - M.: Delo, 2005.

139. Social protection of the population. Russian-Canadian project / Ed. N.M. Rimashevskaya. M., RIC ISEPN, 2002.

140. Social changes in Russian society in the context of the global crisis. Under general ed. IN AND. Zhukova. M.: Publishing house RGSU, 2010. 516 p.

141. Social inequalities and social policy in modern Russia / resp. ed. M. K. Gorshkov, N. E. Tikhonova; Institute of Sociology RAS. M.: Nauka, 2008. - 423 p.

142. Social policy in the context of the “normative theory of the state” / Under the general editorship. prof. AND I. Rubinstein. M, 2009. - 343 p.

143. Social policy and social work in a changing world / ed. E. Yarskaya-Smirnova, P. Romanova. M.: INION RA N, 2002. -454 p.

144. Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 1997.

145. Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2001.

146. Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia. 2002: Stat. Sat. / Goskomstat of Russia. M., 2002.

147. Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia. 2005: Stat. Sat. / Rosstat. M., 2005.

148. Social status and standard of living of the population of Russia. 2007: Statistical collection. / Rosstat. M., 2007.

149. Middle classes in Russia: Economic and social strategies / E.M. Avraamova, L.N. Ovcharova, L.I. Nivorozhkina and others; Ed. T. Maleva; Moscow Carnegie Center. M.: 1 "endalf, 2003. -506 p.

150. Suvorov A.B. Problems of analysis: differentiation, income and construction of a differentiated balance of monetary income: and expenses of the population. Forecasting problems^ No. 1, 2001.

151. Suvorov A.V.; Income and consumption of the population: macroeconomic analysis and forecasting. M., MAKS Press, 2001.

152. Suvorov A.B., Ivanov V.N. Inequality and poverty: experience in solving the problem in Russia and abroad. Problems of forecasting, 2006, No. 3; ■

153. Suvorov A.B., Ivanov V.N., Income and consumption of the Russian population in times of crisis and alternatives to state policy in this area. Problems of forecasting, 2009, No. 6.

154. Surinov A.E. Analysis of the economic behavior of households in Russia in 1997-1999 using regression models. Questions of Statistics, 2000, No. 8.

155. Surinov A.E. Standard of living of the population of Russia: 1992-2002. M., 2003, 279 p.

156. Theory and methodology of research on social problems / resp. ed. R.S. Grinberg,.T. V. Chubarova. M:: Nauka, 2005. - 189 p.

157. Tikhonova N.E. The phenomenon of social exclusion in Russian conditions // World of Russia, 2003, T.XII, No. 1.

158. Tikhonova N.E. The phenomenon of urban poverty in modern Russia. - M.: Summer Garden, 2003. 408 p.

159. Tikhonova N.E. Resource approach as a new theoretical paradigm in stratification studies // Sociological Research. 2006, No. 9.

160. Tikhonova N.E. Social stratification in modern Russia. Experience of empirical analysis. M.: Institute of Sociology RAS, 2007. - 320 p.

161. Tikhonova N.E. Poverty in modern Russia. Reasons and prospects // Sociological studies. 2010, no. 1.

162. Toksanbaeva M.S. To what “addresses” does targeted assistance go to the poor // Questions of Economics. 2003. - No. 10. - P. 130-141.

163. Toksanbaeva M.S. Social interests of workers and the use of labor potential. -M.: Nauka, 2006.

164. Human development: a new dimension of socio-economic progress. Study guide under. general editorship of prof. V.P. Kolesova (Faculty of Economics, Moscow State University) and T. McKinley (UNDP, New York). - M.: Human Rights, 2000. 464 p.

165. Human capital in Russia: model of current and lifetime income / Population of Russia at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries: problems and prospects / Ed. Iontseva V.A., Sagradova A.A. MAX Press, 2002. (co-authored with Denisenko M.B.).

166. Human development in the regions of Russia / Population of Russia at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries: problems and prospects / Ed. Iontseva V.A., Sagradova A.A. M., MAKS Press, 2002.

167. Chetvernina T.Ya. The formation of a system of protection against unemployment in modern Russia / Institute of Economics. - M.: Nauka, 2004.

168. Shevyakov, A.Yu., Kiruta A.Ya. Measuring economic inequality, M.: “Summer”, 2002.

169. Shevyakov A.Yu. Inequality as a key factor in socio-economic dynamics / ISEPS RAS. - M.: M-Studio, 2008.

170. Shevyakov A.Yu., Kiruta. AND I. Inequality, economic growth and demography: unexplored relationships / Establishment of the Russian Acad. Sciences Institute of Social Sciences economist, population problems RAS. - M,: M-studio, 2009.

171. Shevyakov A.Yu. Income inequality as a factor of economic and demographic dynamics: Monograph - M.: ISEPN RAS, 2010. - 43 p.

172. Shkaratan O.I. Social stratification of Russia and Eastern Europe: comparative analysis / O.I. Shkaratan, V. I. Ilyin; State University - Higher School of Economics. - M.: Publishing house. House of the State University Higher School of Economics, 2006. - 468 p.

173. Economics of the public sector / Ed. Zhiltsova E., Lafeya J.-M., 1998.

174. Labor economics and social and labor relations / Ed. G. G. Melikyan, R. P. Kolosova. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1996, - 623 p.

175. Labor economics and social relations: (Course of key lectures) / Ed. Volgina N.A., Rakitsky B.V. -M.: Publishing house RAGS, 1998.-210 p.

176. Yakobson L.I. Public sector of the economy: economic theory and policy: Textbook for universities. M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2000.

177. Yakobson L. I. Social policy: corridors of opportunity. // Social Sciences and Modernity. - M., 2006. No. 2. - P. 52-66.

178. Yaroshenko S. Four sociological explanations of poverty // Socis.-2006, No. 7.-p. 34-41.

179. Aivazian S., Kolenikov S. Poverty and Expenditure Differentiation of the Russian Population. - Economics Education and Research Consortium, 2001.

180. Atkinson A.B., Poverty, Inequality and Class Structure. Poverty and Income Inequality in Britain. Cambridge University Press, 1974.

181. Atkinson A.B., Comparing Poverty Rates Internationally: Lessons from recent studies in developed countries // The World Bank Economic Review, 1991, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 3-21.

182. Atkinson A. B. (ed). Handbook on-Income distribution // Elsevier 2000;

183. Atkinson A.B., Measuring Poverty and Differences in Family Composition. //Economic, 1992,Volume 59.

184. Atkinson A.B., Rainwater L. and Smeeding T.M., Income Distribution in Advanced Economies: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study // Luxembourg Income Study Working paper No. 120. New York: Syracuse University, 1995.

185. Banks J., Johnson P. “Equivalence Scales Relativities Revisited,” Economic Journal, 104(425), 1994, p. 883-890.

186. Brady, D. (2003), Rethinking the Sociological Measurement of Poverty. Social Forces, Vol. 81, No. 3, pp. 715-751.

187. Child Poverty in Rich Countries, Innocenti Report Card No. 6, UNICEF. -Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2005.

188. Citro C. and R. T. Michael. 1995. Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. National Academy Press.

189. Chen S. and Ravallion M. How did the world's poorest fare in the 1990s? Policy research working paper 2409, World Bank. Washington, DC, 2000.

190. Choices for the poor. Lesson from national poverty strategies / edited by Alejandro Grinspin. UNDP, 2001.

191. Bernard van Praag, Robert I. Flik. Poverty lines and equivalence scale: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. International scientific conference, Warsaw, 1991 (p.81-90)

192. Desai, M., 1990. Poverty and Capability: Towards an Empirically Implementable Measure // The Development School Research Program Working Paper No.27, LSE, London.

193. Dickes P. Pauvreté en termes de conditions d'existence. Rapport du program Mire-Insee, Documents de l'Adeps, Université de Nancy II, 1992.

194. Dutrey A.P. Successful Targeting? Reporting Efficiency and Costs in Targeted Poverty Alleviation Programs. United Nations Research Institute. Paper N35. 2003.

195. Energy and protein requirements, World Health Organization Technical Report Series 724 Reprinted 1987, 1991.

196. Family Recourses-Survey 2003-04. United Kingdom, Department for Work and Pensions, 2004.

197. Fisher, G. M. The development of the Orsha poverty thresholds and their subsequent history as the official U.S. poverty measure.

198. Foster, J. E., J. Greer, and E. Thorbecke (1984) "A Class of Decomposable Poverty Indices." Econometrica, 52(3): 761-66.

199. Guio A-C. Material deprivation in the EU. Statistic in Focus, 21/2005.

200. Guio A.-C. Income poverty and social exclusion in EU25 // Statistics in focus/ Population and social conditions. 13/2005.

201. Goedhart T., Halberstadt K.A., Kapteyn A., van Praag B. The Poverty Line: Conception and Measurement // Journal of Human Resources. 1977. Vol. 12. N 4.

202. Gordon, D. Breadline Britain in the 1990s / D. Gordon, C. Pantazis - Ashgate: Aldershot. 1997.

203. Gordon D. et al. (2000), Poverty and social exclusion in Britain Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

204. Gordon, D. and Townsend, P. (1990). Measuring the poverty line, Radical Statistics, 47.5-12.

205. Gordon, D., Davey Smith, G., Dorling, D. and Shaw, M. (eds) (1999) Inequalities in health: The evidence presented to the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, Bristol: The Policy Press.

206. Goedhart T., Halberstadt K.A., Kapteyn A., van Praag B. The Poverty Line: Conception and Measurement // Journal of Human Resources. 1977.

207. Grootaert K. and Braithwaite J., Poverty correlates and indicator-based targeting in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union // Policy Research Working paper. Washington D.C.: The World bank, 1998.

208. Gustafsson B., Shi L., Sato H. Can a Subjective Poverty Line Be Applied to China? Assessing Poverty Among Urban Residents in 1999 // Journal of International Development. 2004. Vol. 16.

209. Hourrier J.-M., Olier L. Niveau de vie et taille du m nage: estimations d "une chelle d" quivalence // Economie et Statistique. Paris, 1997.N 308-309-310.

210. International comparisons of poverty. EUR0STAT, INSEE, Bratislava, 2000.

211. Kakwani N., 1980. On a Class of Poverty Measures // Econometrica, vol. 48, No.2; 1980.

212. Kilpatrick R.W. The Income Elasticity of Poverty Line // Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 327-332.

213. Lam D. Demographic Variables and Income Inequality // in: M. R. Rosenzweig and O. Stark (eds.), Handbook of population and family economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1997.

214. Mack J., Lansley S. Poor Britain. L.: George Allen & Unwin, 1985;

215. Measuring child poverty. Department for Work and Pensions. UK, London, 2004.

216. Milanovic B. Income, Inequality and Poverty during the Transition from Planned to Market Economy. The World Bank, Washington, 1998.

217. Milanovic B., Yizhaki S. Decomposing World Income Distribution: Does the World Have a Middle Class? // Review of Income and Wealth. 2002. Vol. 48.No. 2.

218. Milanovic B. Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality, Princeton, 2005. 240 p.

219. Nelson J.A. “Household Equivalence Scales: Theory versus Policy?”, Journal of Labor Economics, 11(3), 1993, p. 471-493.

220. Nolan B., Whelan C.T. Resources, Deprivation and the Measurement of Poverty. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1996.

221. Protein Reference Values ​​in the Russian Federation. Development of a subsistence income level for the Russian Federation and the practical consequences of a high protein reference value (norm). . With conclusions and recommendations by WHO/EURO.

222. Ravallion M., Bidani B. How Robust is a Poverty Profile? / World Bank Economic Review. 1994. Vol. 8. N 1. P. 75-102.

223. Ravaillon M., Datt G., van de Wale D. Quantifying Absolute Poverty in the Developing World // Review of Income and Wealth, 1991, Vol. 37.

224. Ravallion M., Lokshin M. (1999) Subjective Economic Welfare. Policy Research Working Paper 2106, Development Research Group; The World Bank.

225. Ravallion M., Lokshin M. (2000) Self-Rated Economic Welfare in Russia. The World Bank.

226. Ravallion M., Lokshin M. Subjective Economic Welfare // Policy Research Working Paper 2106. Development Research Group, The World Bank, 1999:

227. Rainwater L. The Poor in Comparative Perspective // ​​Report from Multidisciplinary Research Conference on Poverty and Distribution. Oslo. November 16-17, 1992.

228. Rainwater L., Smeeding T., Coder J. Poverty Across States, Nations, and Countries // Child Well-being, Child Poverty and Child Policy in Modern Nations: What Do We Know? /Ed. by K. Vleminckx, T.M. Smeeding. Bristol, UK: Policy Press, 2000.

229. Rowentree B. Poverty a study of Town Life. London, Macmillan, 1901.

230. Rowentree B., Kendall M. How the Laborers Live. London; Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1913.

231. Sen A. Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement. Econometrica 44:219-231,1976.

232. Sen A. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco, Holden-Day, 1970.

233. Sen A. On Economic Inequality. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1973.

234. Sen A., Commodities and Capabilities. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1985.

235. Sen A., (1992), Inequality Reexamined. Harvard University Press.

236. Sen A., On economic inequality. Enlarged edition with a substantial annex “On economic inequality after a quarter of century”. Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1997.

237. Scottish index of multiple deprivation. Summary technical report. - Scottish Executive, Edinburgh, 2004.

238. Scottish index of deprivation. Social Disadvantage Research Centre, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, 2003.

239. Townsend P. International Analysis of Poverty. L.: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.

240. Townsend P. Poverty in the United Kingdom. A Survey of household resources and standards of living, N.Y., 1979.260: The Measure of Poverty. Technical Paper XII/Food Plans for Poverty Measurement. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1977.

241. The Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey 1999-2001. Univ. of North Carolina. Carolina Population Center. Agency for Nation Development. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2001.

242. Verger D. Bas revenus, consommation restreinte ou faible bien tre: les approches statistiques de la pauvret 1" preuve des comparaisons internationales/ conomie et statistique. 2005. N 383-385.

243. Watts, H.W. An Economic Definition of Poverty // in D. P. Moynihan (ed.) “On Understanding Poverty”. Basic Books, New York, 1968.

244. Weit-Wilson>John. Consensual Approaches to Poverty Lines and Social Security / Journal of Social-Policy. 1995.

245. Whelan Christopher T., Maftre Bertrand. Comparing Poverty Indicators in an Enlarged European Union European Sociological Review Vol. 26, No. 6, 2010

246. Wilson, W. J. 1987. Studying Inner-City Social Dislocations: The Challenge of Public Agenda Research. American Sociological Review. 1987.Vol. 56. P.l14".

247. Yemtsov R. Quo Vadis: Inequality and Poverty Dynamics Across Russian Regions // Working Paper. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 2003.

248. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

249. INSTITUTE OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF POPULATION RAS1. As a manuscript1. Ovcharova Liliya Nikolaevna

250. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE, FACTORS AND FORMS OF POVERTY OF THE RUSSIAN POPULATION