Social and demographic challenges of sustainable development in Russia Daria Popova INCLUSIVE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN EAST AND NORTH-EAST ASIA: STRENGTHENING NATIONAL CAPACITY TO PRODUCE AND USE STATISTICAL INFORMATION 20-21 September 2012, Beijing China
2011 Population, mln 142.9 Population 0-17 years, % 18.2 Population 65+, % 12.8 GNI per capita, PPP USD 20 050 GDP growth, % 4.3 HDI rank 66 Unemployment rate (ILO), % 6.6 CPI, % 106.1 National currency Rubles
200 GDP 1991=100% Real income Real wage Real adjusted wage (including hidden wage) Real pension 100 0 100 86 78 68 65 63 64 60 64 71 74 78 84 90 95 103 112 118 108 113 118 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Real income restored in 2005, real pension in 2010; 40% of earnings is hidden from statistical observation.
45% 40% Gini coefficient, % Poverty headcount, % of the population 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Absolute poverty reduced by half due to economic growth; but persistent inequality.
Poverty by population subgroups, 2010 Poverty profile, % Poverty risk, % By type of settlement Urban 59.8 10.4 Rural 40.2 19.3 By age group Children under 16 years 25.5 18.9 People of active working age 64.4 12.7 People of pension age 10.0 7.2 By status of economic activity (people aged 15+ years) Economically active population, incl.: 64.9 11.7 Employed, incl.: 61.0 11.2 working pensioners 3.7 4.5 Unemployed 3.9 31.2 Economically inactive population, incl.: 35.1 15.6 not working pensioners 11.9 10.6 Structure of the households of the 1st income decile All non-working persons are pensioners All ablebodied persons work At least one ablebodied person neither works, nor studies and is not a pensioner At least one ablebodied person does not work, but studies or is a pensioner 22% 4% 45% 29% Total 100 12.8 Rural population, children and unemployed are at the highest risk of poverty; extreme poverty is caused by the exit from the labour market.
% of the population that cannot afford (Gender and Generation Survey) 0% 50% 100% once a year to go on 1-week vacation away from home for every member of the household 73% 66% 59% to pay for education of family members if necessary to invite friends or relatives for lunch, dinner at least once a month to replace, if necessary, old furniture and durables to pay for health services, excluding expensive surgery, if necessary to eat meat, chicken or fish at least every second day to buy new, not second-hand clothes to keep the house warm enough 26% 22% 15% 20% 15% 10% 17% 11% 9% 47% 39% 42% 51% 41% 60% 53% The incidence of material deprivation reduced but more slowly compared to monetary poverty. 36% 46% 62% 2004 2007 2011
Gender and Generation Survey 2011 Income poverty (19.8%) 17.2% Subjective poverty (38.2%) 7% 6.7% 5.1% 1% 9.5% Deprivation poverty (21%) 5.4% Small area of intersection i of alternative poverty definitions.
Gender and Generation Survey 2011 6.2% Socioprofessional status (20.8%) 12.6% 5.5% 4.8% 4.3% Material assets and property (28%) 5.1% 11.0% Subjective estimates (25.2%) The Russian middle class is not a homogeneous social group: only 5% satisfy all the three criteria; about 20% satisfy at least two criteria.
0% 10% Social stratification (Gender and Generation Survey) 2004 2007 2011 12.1 15.5 19.7 middle class 20% 30% 18.8 23.1 23.9 potential middle class 40% 24.9 50% 60% 26.2 21.1 class below middle 70% 80% 31.2 26.1 26.5 potential poverty 90% 100% 13.1 9.1 8.8 poverty The major social group of households (70%) is between the low and middle classes; very little dynamics.
18 Components of the total population change 8 12 6 0-6 -12-18 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 births (left scale) deaths (left scale) natural increase (right scale) total increase (right scale) 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 6 4 2 0-2 -4-6 -8 Population decline due to natural loss.
life expectancy at birth, years 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 1990 1991 1992 life expectancy at birth: women life expectancy at birth: all population life expectancy at birth: men total fertility rate 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Extremely high mortality rate of men of working age; fertility is considerably below the reproduction level. 2.0 1.5 1.0 total fertility rate, number of births per 100 women
60 Indicators of child and maternal mortality 50 Maternal mortality (per 100,000 live births) 40 30 20 10 0 1990 1995 Mortality among children under 5 (per 1,000 live-born children) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Child mortality reduced by half, little progress in maternal mortality since 2004.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0% 100% 24.5 24.3 24.2 23.8 23.4 23.2 22.8 22.3 21.7 21.1 20.3 19.6 18.9 18.2 17.5 16.9 16.4 16.0 15.8 15.8 16.1 16.2 56.9 56.8 56.8 56.7 56.7 57.1 57.3 57.6 58.2 59.0 59.8 60.6 61.3 62.0 62.8 63.2 63.5 63.5 63.2 62.8 62.3 61.5 18.7 19.1 19.4 19.9 20.1 20.2 20.4 20.7 20.8 20.8 20.7 20.6 20.7 20.6 20.4 20.4 20.5 20.7 20.9 21.2 21.6 22.2 the proportion of the population: below working age (0-15 years) of working age above working age Decrease in the proportion of children and population ageing
Indicator (2009) Russian Federation Best among the regions Worst among the regions Moscow-city GDP per capita, PPP USD 18,260 46,359 (Tiumen region) 1,988 (Republic of Ingushetia) 37,088 Poland Switzerland Cambodia, Nigeria Canada Fertility rate 1.537 3.376 (Chechen Republic) 1.185 (Leningrad Region) 1.41 Switzerland, Spain, Czech Republic Haiti, Bolivia, Laos Republic of Korea Austria, Hungary, Italy Infant mortality 8.1 4.0 (Khantymansiyskiy AO) 16.6 (Chechenskaya Republic) 6.7 Bulgaria, Kuwait, Montenergo Austria, Belgium, Germany Brasil, China Latvia, Chile Life expectancy at birth 68.67 78.31 (Republic of Ingushetia) 58.22 (Chukotskiy AO) 73.61 Belarus, Moldova Portugal, Slovenia Guinea, Sudan Bulgaria, Hungary Huge regional disparities in social development indicators
Thank you!