Svetlana Biryukova – Kandidat nauk (PhD) in Economics, Leading Researcher, Centre for Comprehensive Social Policy Studies at ISP NRU HSE, Moscow, Russia. Email: sbiryukova@hse.ru Oxana Sinyavskaya – Kandidat nauk (PhD) in Economics, Director of Centre for Comprehensive Social Policy Studies at ISP NRU HSE, Moscow, Russia. Email: osinyavskaya@hse.ru The paper presents a detailed analysis of the Russian official statistics for orphans and children placed out of parental care. Employing a wide range of data sources, the authors show that in Russia, the primary risk of orphanhood remains high. Although it has declined over the last fifteen years, in 2015, the share of children taken out of parental care exceeded two percent of the total number of children under eighteen. At the same time, statistical data confirms the ongoing deinstitualisation of the Russian care system, a trend that has continued since the mid‑2000s. Thus, 11.5 % of children out of parental care were institutionalised in 2014, whereas in 2000 this share amounted to as much as 27 %. However, the authors argue that the current childcare system reproduces a number of serious systemic problems. Firstly, despite the fact that over 80 % of children entering the Russian care system per year have living parents, reuniting the children with the birth family is not yet recognised as a primary objective of the policy; according to the official statistics, only one out of ten children goes back home after being taken out of parental care. Secondly, for particular groups of children it is often hard to arrange family placements. Until now, the higher risks of long-term institutionalisation are noticeable in children placed out of parental care at the age of three years or older. This problem is particularly serious for teenagers, as well as for children with physical or mental disabilities. Thirdly, the prevalence and dynamics in children returning to institutions from foster placements highlight the importance of professional training for foster parents and the need for consistent guidance for foster families, aspects that are still underdeveloped in Russia. In the last section of the paper, authors discuss one possible outcome of this analysis with reference to policies aimed at children left out of parental care.
Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia 4From 2007 to 2014 total fertility rate in Russia increased from 1.42 to 1.75. To what extent this growth is related to a package of family policy measures introduced in 2007? Although the maternity (family) capital program is the most well-known innovation of the 2007 reform, we argue that the new rules of monthly childcare allowance assignment is its another major component. Since all measures were introduced simultaneously, it is only possible to estimate their cumulative effect on subsequent fertility behavior. Using panel Russian Generations and Gender Survey data collected in 2004, 2007 and 2011, this study assesses how family policy changes introduced in 2007 were related to the fertility behavior in Russia in recent years. We find a statistically significant increase in the chances of having second and subsequent births in September 2007 to Summer 2011 in comparison with the period of Summer 2004 to September 2007. We interpret that as a cumulative effect of the 2007 policy changes. We acknowledge that the observed effects might be related only to the calendar shifts in fertility behavior and further data and studies are needed to make any conclusions about completed fertility of the cohorts affected by 2007 family policy measures.
The study aims at assessing the prevalence of informal employment in the Russian labour market and evaluating its relationship with the risks of monetary poverty. Empirically, the study bases on the data of the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS HSE) for 2000-2020. Calculations have shown that over the past 20 years, on average, about a quarter of Russian employees were included in the informal labour market for their main or secondary employment. The results of the study provide some evidence on the existence of several zones of informality in the Russian labour market, in which there are different motives for deformalization, in particular: low-skilled employment in the informal sector, employment only in the format of informal part-time / side jobs (“casual employment”) and partial departure to the informal sector while maintaining an official employment contract at the main place of work. Employment with part or all of the pay for the main job received informally — that is, without a formal contract or with declared wages below the actual wage received, in violation of current regulations — is more common among men, young people and people of early working age, and as well as citizens with education below vocational secondary. At the same time, women, people aged 30–49, and citizens with vocational secondary education predominate in the structure of informally employed, although with a slight preponderance. Regression analysis shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between involvement in the informal labour market and the risks of monetary poverty: fully informal employment in 2019 is associated with higher chances of the respondent’s household falling into poverty, and with lower chances in 2020.
The role of social protection in supporting people’s well‑being, reducing poverty and inequality is difficult to overestimate in stable times, but its importance increases especially in times of crisis, as confirmed by the global shock of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Under the conditions of increasing uncertainty, a social protection system turns into a “safety cushion” — a macroeconomic and sociopolitical stabilizer. The purpose of the article is to show, based on the analysis of the main trends in the development of the Russian social protection system and considering the challenges of the current moment, possible alternative choices in its development in the mid‑term period. Authors use a broad definition of the social protection system, which includes non‑contributory measures of social protection (social assistance), contributory and non‑contributory pensions, minimum wages, and social services (long‑term care). The article contributes to the literature on economics and public administration, which focuses on social policy in times of economic crises. The article discusses the turn in social protection associated with the adoption of the national development goals in 2018. The authors analyze to what extent has the coronavirus pandemic affected the main challenges and problems facing Russian social protection; what were the key decisions in the field of anticrisis support for the population, and how they affected indicators of poverty and inequality. The article also presents recent research results on changes in public attitudes toward social protection as well as issues of using the time‑budget as a component of a comprehensive assessment of the population’s quality of life. In conclusion, the article discusses lessons which can be learned from the experience of the pandemic‑related crisis for the future development of the Russian social protection system, including in the conditions of turbulence that have arisen in 2022.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.